Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Civil Aerospace Projects

Mr. Stern: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a report on the extent to which British civil aerospace projects are assisted out of defence budgets, and the equivalent figures for the United States of America.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): Precise figures are not available but, given the vastly greater size of the United States defence budget, the civil aerospace industry in the United States will have benefited over the years to a much greater extent that has been the case in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but is it not deplorable that the United States Administration should criticise European aircraft manufacturers such as Airbus for having an element of subsidy when in the United States there is a vastly greater subsidy through the defence budget for which figures are not even published? Does my hon. Friend agree that the announced failure of the Boeing 747–400 to achieve a certificate of airworthiness may be connected with the same problem in that these days slightly higher standards of safety are often demanded for civil aircraft than for what are basically military aircraft?

Mr. Atkins: As ever, my hon. Friend represents his constituents in British Aerospace, which makes part of the Airbus as well as many military components. His points are entirely fair. I caution him a little about his comments on the Boeing 747–400, because I remind the House that there is a substantial input of British manufacturers' equipment, for example, from Rolls-Royce. None the less, the point is well taken that Airbus will play an important part in the future of European aerospace in competition with the United States.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the success of Airbus is even more remarkable considering the fact that it was not borne on the back of a military project? Does my hon. Friend not agree that the fact that

orders have been received this year alone worth £2,000 million to British Aerospace is a tribute not only to the European dimension but to the skill and technology available in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, like me, has flown in the A320. He will perhaps appreciate it better than me because he has a pilot's licence whereas I do not and am, therefore, guided by experts in this sector. My hon. Friend's points about the success of the Airbus are extremely good. It is one of the greatest success stories of European aerospace in which, of course, British Aerospace plays a large part, and all are to be congratulated on the achievements, especially when in competition with the American aerospace industry.

Competitiveness

Mr. Graham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the change in competitiveness of British industry in the last 10 years.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Newton): Competitiveness involves numerous factors including quality, reliability, assurance of delivery and after-sales service. In relation to price competitiveness alone, unit labour costs in United Kingdom manufacturing compared with those in other industrial countries, allowing for the effects of exchange rate movements, are thought to have been on average the same in 1988 as in 1979.

Mr. Graham: Does the Minister agree that in 1979 we had a manufacturing trade surplus of £5 billion but in 1988 we had a deficit of more than £14 billion? When will the Government do something to reassure Britain that we can recover our position at least to that of 1979?

Mr. Newton: That is a rather odd question from someone who would presumably have supported the last Labour Government under whom—by comparison with the stability of our competitiveness on the index that I have mentioned—competitiveness dropped by 25 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.

Mr. Charles Wardle: As well as efficiencies in output and product costs, is not competitiveness about getting the product that the customer wants tomorrow into the market before our rivals? If that is so, should not British companies be investing a large proportion of their profits today in research and development?

Mr. Newton: Yes. We do all that we can to encourage increased R and D, not only in this country but through the important collaborative mechanisms of the European Community. The important point is that United Kingdom companies, not least those involved in manufacturing, now have the profitability enabling them to do just that.

Mr. Gould: May I attempt to help the Chancellor of the Duchy with his apparent difficulty in handling some of the statistics? Will he bear in mind that there was an immediate and substantial loss of competitiveness in 1979 upon the Conservative Government taking office due to their insane exchange rate policy? The true comparison is therefore not with 1979 as a whole, but with the first quarter of 1979, and it is that comparison which shows such a huge loss of competitiveness. The figures—if the Chancellor would really like to hear them—show that on


actual labour costs the index figure for 1979 was 99, but for the first quarter it was only 90. [Interruption.] I know that the Conservative Members do not want to hear this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I am about to ask a question, but first we must get the facts clear. That comparison shows not only a huge loss of competitiveness on actual labour costs but an even greater loss on normalised unit labour costs.
Will the Chancellor therefore—[Interruption.] I will not be deterred by shouting. I want to put my question. In those circumstances, will the Chancellor refrain from making claims about competitiveness which are disputed and denied by his own statistics and by our experience in the market place?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is Question Time, not a debate.

Mr. Newton: If there is any difficulty about statistics I venture to say that it is experienced in Dagenham and not in Braintree. The biggest single effect on Britain's competitiveness in 1979 is not be measured by the statistics mentioned—it was the winter of discontent and the shambles of industrial relations.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any fool can create the conditions in which products can be given away at enormous loss? The sales figures may be good, but such a policy eventually leads to bankruptcy. Such were the conditions that we inherited in 1979 and which prevailed throughout 1979 until the Government were able to bring in the changes that have produced eight years of continuous growth and continuous profits.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has put, with commendable succinctness, the point that I sought to make rather more aggressively a moment ago.

Manufacturing Productivity

Mr. Eadie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which of the seven major industrial countries have a higher manufacturing productivity level than the United Kingdom, and which have a lower level.

Mr. Atkins: No reliable comparisons exist for absolute levels of manufacturing productivity between different countries, but available figures show that in the 1980s the United Kingdom has had the fastest rate of growth in manufacturing productivity of the seven major industrial countries.

Mr. Eadie: Given the information that the Minister has offered to the House, he must agree that we start from a low base due to the slaughter of manufacturing capacity in industry in the early 1980s. The Minister must be concerned that our training performance is much lower than comparable EEC countries. The import of industrial machinery is helping to increase our manufacturing capacity, but does the Minister not find it worrying that as a result of the policies of the 1980s we no longer have the indigenous capacity to make that machinery?

Mr Atkins: I prefer to take the hon. Gentleman back to the 1960s and the 1970s rather than just the 1980s. Between 1960 and 1970 the United Kingdom's average growth rate was only 3 per cent., and it was only 1½ per cent. between 1970 and 1980. Since 1980 our rate of growth has averaged 5 per cent. Of course, productivity

can always be improved and we recognise, as much as the Opposition do, that productivity must be improved if we are to maintain our competitive edge in world markets. We are making up for the difficulties that we had in the 1960s and the 1970s. I am sure that I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman of them as his party was as much in power then as mine.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the huge improvement in manufacturing productivity over the past 10 years, but is not the gap in absolute terms between ourselves and the Germans and Americans still too wide? In this context, does my hon. Friend share the concern of many Conservative Members about the offer recently made by the Engineering Employers Federation of a 6 per cent. wage increase and a reduction of one and a half hours in the working week? Of even more concern is the rejection by the trade unions of that substantial offer, which plays into the hands of our competitors just as we are catching them up.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the possibility of uncompetitiveness resulting from high wage increases which are not related to productivity. His point is well taken. I was interested to learn recently that a survey by the German chamber of industry showed that the rate of manufacturing productivity of German companies in the United Kingdom is greater than in Germany.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that the rate of increase in our manufacturing productivity is now falling, and that its absolute level is still way below that of our main competitors? Will he explain how that can be radically improved, given our inadequate investment in machinery and plant, and in management, supervisory and craft training?

Mr. Atkins: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, training matters are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and I should be the first to welcome the training initiative being taken in that Department. Clearly, there is always room for better management. The enterprise initiative, which forms part of what the Department of Trade and Industry is doing, has proved to be one of the most popular schemes that the Department has produced. It includes "Managing into the 90s" which is encouraging middle managers in small and medium-sized companies to recognise that productivity is one of the most important factors influencing their increased competitiveness as we move towards the 1990s and the turn of the century.

Girobank

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on the future of Girobank.

Mr. Newton: As I stated in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 20 April, the Post Office board accepted a conditional offer by the Alliance and Leicester building society for Girobank, and I endorsed its decision. Detailed negotiations between the two parties are continuing with a view to completion as soon as possible in the coming weeks.
The regulatory authorities will need to be satisfied and my consent will be needed before a sale can take place.

Mr. Lloyd: Does the Chancellor appreciate the very real fears of those who work in Girobank that the regional offices, particularly the headquarters of Girobank in Bootle which has more than 3.500 employees, could be jeopardised by the takeover? What discussions has he had with the building society to ascertain its plans for the future and what can he say today to assuage the fears about job losses?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I appreciate that uncertainty necessarily gives rise to some anxiety and I am anxious that the matter should be resolved as soon as possible. I have not had direct discussions with the building society. The Post Office is selling Girobank, subject to my consent. As I have told a number of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on a number of occasions, it seems unlikely, to put it mildly, that anyone would wish to buy Girobank without being interested in preserving and developing one of its major assets—the centre of Bootle.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Alliance and Leicester is a good organisation to bid for Girobank because it has a history of innovation, particularly in setting up a successful financial company? Does he also agree that it is far better for free enterprise to run the Girobank, rather than the pot pourri of Parliament, the Civil Service and the Post Office?

Mr. Newton: In a word, yes.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Has the Alliance and Leicester building society given any indication whether it has the £50 million required for investment in Girobank's future? Will that money be forthcoming? Will there still be a need for a second centre, probably in the north-west of England, as currently proposed by the Girobank? What talks are taking place between the Alliance and Leicester and the Girobank work force prior to the sale? Will the Minister give an undertaking that if he gives his ministerial consent he will make that announcement in a statement to the House and not in a written answer?

Mr. Newton: On the last point, I cannot add to what has been said to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in a letter. I have repeated the information in a letter that I am writing to the hon. Gentleman today. With regard to the contingency centre that is proposed for Wigan, I have made it clear that I cannot commit a prospective purchaser of the Girobank to any particular proposal at this stage. Talks with the unions, particularly on the issue of timing, are a matter for the Alliance and Leicester in the light of its other discussions. As for the hon. Gentleman's first question, I would not like to put any particular figure on what we would expect the Alliance and Leicester to invest—that, too, would be a matter for its own judgment.

Mr. Henderson: I wish to raise a more serious matter relating to the sale of Girobank, and one which is wholly contrary to Government policy and the public interest. Is it true that the Co-operative Bank made an offer for Girobank substantially and significantly above the conditionally accepted offer of £130 million made by the Alliance and Leicester, and if so, what explanation can the Minister give for the sale of Girobank at a knockdown price?

Mr. Newton: I know of absolutely no basis for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. It is certainly the case that a number of expressions of interest were received, in some instances amounting to actual bids. Those, of course, were commercial in confidence and have been treated as such.

Consumer Affairs

Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss consumer affairs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I hope to meet my European Community counterparts and Mr. Van Miert, Commissioner with responsibility for consumer issues, at the Council of Consumer Ministers which the Spanish presidency has planned for 1 June.

Mr. Turner: Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed by consumer organisations in the United Kingdom that unless we make progress and take much more care of the consumer interest in this country—and take it much more seriously—consumers will lose out in 1992?

Mr. Forth: I am aware of the concern to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I admit that I share none of it, for two important reasons. First, the consumer will benefit enormously from the development and fulfilment of the single European market, having always stood to be the main beneficiary. Secondly, consumers in this country are better served than those in almost any other country in the Community by our legislation, and by the extent to which they are represented and the Government listen to their representatives. I am confident that the concern that has been expressed is entirely unfounded.

Mr. Gow: What useful purpose will be served by this meeting?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend asks an interesting question. He may like to know that in the 10 months for which I have had the honour to occupy my present position there has not yet been a meeting of Community Consumer Ministers, and he may take some reassurance from the possibility that when I complete my year in office they will have met only once.

Mr. Ted Garrett: Would the Minister care to relate the statement that he has just made to my question No. 13? If so, I should like to ask him a question.

Mr. Forth: I expect to give the hon. Gentleman a very full reply when we reach his question No. 13.

Mr. McCrindle: The purchase of a house is the largest single financial transaction in which most of us engage in our lifetime, and it also happens to be the only investment not included in the ambit of the Financial Services Act 1986. As rather stronger consumer protection applies in this regard in other EEC countries, and as the implication is that my hon. Friend will not be meeting his fellow Ministers too often, will he explore that point on 1 June to see whether we are a little behind some of our competitors?

Mr. Forth: I have some good news and some bad news for my hon. Friend. The bad news is that that item is not on the agenda for the meeting on 1 June; the good news is that, having been involved—as my hon. Friend will know


—in an extensive review of house buying and selling over the past few months, I shall shortly reveal the outcome to an astonished world. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted with that outcome.

Ms. Quin: Has the Minister seen the consumer manifesto for the European elections published by the London-based "Consumers in the European Community Group"? Has he also seen the manifesto published by the Consumers Association entitled "1992 and the Consumer"? Will he urge Tory Euro candidates to support the proposals in those manifestos, some of which will no doubt be considered at the June meeting? Following the example of other Ministers, will he veto the proposals because they include health and safety matters and oppose them no matter how beneficial they are for consumers?

Mr. Forth: The answers are no, no, no, no and no.

Inward Investment (Manufacturing Industry)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much inward investment there has been in manufacturing industry in the past year; what was the figure five, 10 and 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: The latest available data relate to 1987 when net direct inward investment in United Kingdom manufacturing was £2,582 million. The corresponding figure for 1984 was £1,056 million, for 1979 £1,049 million and for 1974 £468 million. These figures, together with recent announcements such as those by Fujitsu, Bosch and Toyota, clearly indicate the enhanced attraction of the United Kingdom as a base for manufacturing industry.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are an excellent indication of the competitiveness of this country and will be good for jobs here? Will he try to encourage investment in the television technology industry with a view to producing television equipment which could show the Chamber as it is—if our proceedings are to be televised—rather than in the truncated form proposed in the Select Committee report published today? We should have the Chamber televised as it is or not at all.

Mr. Newton: There are clearly a number of views on how wise it would be to televise the Chamber as it is. I shall leave hon. Members to make their own judgment about that. In reply to my hon. Friend's broader questions, I can tell him that we shall continue to do all that we can to encourage mobile international investment in Britain to contribute to the further strengthening of our manufacturing industry.

Dr. Reid: The figures that the Minister has given for inward investment are very impressive. Is he aware that the equally impressive figures issued by the Scottish Office and "Locate in Scotland" are under investigation by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, which found that the figures had overestimated the amount of inward investment by 50 per cent.? Why should we believe that the Minister's figures are any different from those given by the Scottish Office?

Mr. Newton: I am aware of the argument to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but obviously when it comes to figures about the exact number of jobs created there is scope for a certain amount of argument. [HON. MEMBERS:

"Fifty per cent.?"] There is clearly no room for argument about the contribution that is being made by new direct investment to the creation of new jobs on a large scale or about the contribution that that is making to the strengthening of the British economy.

Mr. Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there was about £5 billion of overseas investment in Britain last year—a 20 per cent. increase on 1987? As is demonstrated by Fujitsu in County Durham, Bosch in Cardiff and Sony in Basingstoke, the Government have created a climate favourable to overseas investors, who wish to invest in Britain because they know that we now have a successful business climate.

Mr. Newton: Yes, I emphasise what my hon. Friend has said. The figures that I gave related only to direct investment in manufacturing. The total amount is significantly larger.

Information Technology Products

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the United Kingdom trade deficit in information technology products in 1988.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): The United Kingdom trade deficit in the products of the electronic and information technology sector was £2·3 billion in the 12 months to September 1988.

Mr. Brown: The Conservative party enthusiastically closed down the traditional industrial base of the north-east of England on the promise that new sunrise industries would be set up. Why then is there a balance of trade deficit in the sunrise industries and why are no British sunrise employers going to the provincial centres of England?

Mr. Clark: The overall value of the business is £16 billion. The high tech sector of international trade is an extremely complex subject. The hon. Gentleman and the House will be interested to know that the United Kingdom is in surplus with the European community to the tune of some £600 million. France, Italy and Germany are all in deficit in sum vastly greater than ours. Even the United States is in deficit in information technology. It is a western problem and the solution is elusive.

Sir Ian Lloyd: In view of their immense importance to the performance of British science and technology, can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the deficit is accounted for by supercomputers since that is a proportion of the deficit about which no one should have any complaint?

Mr. Clark: No, supercomputers are sourced only in the United States. They are essential. My hon. Friend is right. As he will know, in the United Kingdom the system of a harmonised array of secondary computers is much cheaper and in some cases gives the same results.

Mr. Kennedy: When the DTI is attempting to find an answer to Britain leading the way and pioneering much of information technology, why does it end up with such a woeful deficit in terms of trade, not with Europe but with other parts of the globe? What has the DTI done to try to find the answer that the Minister thinks is so elusive?

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken. Our exports are worth £11 billion. The deficit accounts for less than 5 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Oppenheim: Surely the elusive answer to the trying problem should not include the type of protectionist measures being erected by the European Community, including quotas, voluntary restraint agreements and spurious anti-dumping duties. Such moves not only put off the evil day when the European industry has to sort out its own act but substantially raise prices to European consumers of the products. Should not our Government, of all Governments, should be fighting harder in the European Community to stop such nonsense?

Mr. Clark: However they may be drafted, the protectionist measures cannot be effective as the Community has an overall deficit of £7 billion.

Manufacturing Sales (Imports)

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the share of imports in United Kingdom manufacturing sales three years ago; and what it is now.

Mr. Alan Clark: The share of imports in United Kingdom manufacturing sales was 34·3 per cent. in 1985 and 35·8 per cent. in the 12-month period ending in the first quarter of 1988. In other words, it was very little changed, although I recognise that that may not have been the answer for which the hon. Gentleman was hoping.

Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister aware that the difference between imports and exports has increased by 33 per cent. since 1979? Can he name any Government in this century who have had a worse record in trade deficits? If he can, will he give the statistics to verify his statement?

Mr. Clark: I admire the hon. Gentleman's footwork in rapidly changing the substance of his question. The answer to the first one was precisely what he did not want. In fact, our manufactured exports by volume increased by 5 per cent. in the last quarter. That is an annualised rate of over 20 per cent. Certainly, imports continue to grow, but that is a function of consumer choice spread across many sectors. It is a function of capital goods and a function of the demand for semi-finished products.

Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware that one way of fighting import penetration is by import substitution, with British manufacturers producing the goods that we want? Is he aware, for instance, that the arrival of Toyota is extremely welcome in the British motor car industry, as indeed is the total amount of investment announced by manufacturing and component industries of around £7,000 million? Is not the way forward to produce all the products that we want for the home market and for export?

Mr. Clark: Certainly it is one way forward, among many. One of the most beneficial effects of inward investment is the disciplines imposed on components suppliers as a result of the local sourcing proportions that are required and the increased quality that is spread right across that sector.

Mr. Worthington: Does it remain the Government's attitude that, progressively, the share of the work force in

manufacturing industry will fall and that in service industries rise? If so, is not that attitude fundamentally misplaced, in that most service industries require a very large number of manufactured goods, which ought to be produced in this country, and that they will themselves eventually be replaced by machinery?

Mr. Clark: Shifts in balance between various sectors of the work force have nothing to do with Government policy. The greatest increases in productivity usually arise in factories that are the most highly automated.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's unique role in standing up for British manufacturing industry, does he agree that if manufacturing industry has a broader base it will be able to supply more of the machinery and materials required in the manufacture of export goods—which would be to the advantage not only of employment but our balance of trade?

Mr. Clark: At the risk of further incurring the mockery of our erstwhile colleague Mr. Parris, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's absolutely valid point. The level of inward investment is such that as it seeps through the economy, and as its disciplines on component sourcing are imposed—there is no doubt that their requirements must be maintained—it will have a progressive effect that will contribute to overcoming the problem that my hon. Friend identifies.

Single Market

Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further steps his Department proposes to take to ensure that United Kingdom manufacturing industries are fully prepared for 1992.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): My Department is providing a comprehensive service to help business prepare for the single market that is constantly updated and expanded to take account of progress on single market-related measures. It is for firms themselves, whether they are in the manufacturing sector or in others, to take whatever steps are necessary to compete.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister acknowledge that all the surveys show that while manufacturing output is expected to increase in the Community as a whole after 1992, it is expected to fall in the United Kingdom? That development is expected to be accompanied by falling employment in manufacturing regions such as the north-west, Scotland and midlands. What action will the Government take to ensure that the projected loss of 200,000 jobs is not allowed to occur and that workers in manufacturing industry are not again sold down the river?

Mr. Maude: What happens to jobs and to businesses will depend on the ability of businesses to produce goods that customers want to buy—at a price, time and quality that they demand. Nothing that any Government can do will override that. All the surveys that I have seen indicate that the successful completion of a single European market that is not overburdened with regulations, and which is a genuine free market, will lead to increased employment, output and wealth.

Mr. Page: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to give British manufacturing industry opportunities in 1992 is to ensure not only a strong internal demand for its products but exceeding support to the "Better Made in Britain" campaign? Will my hon. Friend say whether any examination has been made of the correlation between manufacturing investment and production volumes, and what levels of manufacturing investment are in his opinion necessary to create the desired balance of trade?

Mr. Maude: It is clear that businesses must make their own decisions. They must estimate demand for their products and how to meet it in the most effective way. It is not for me to express the Government's views about the way that businesses should run themselves. It is for businesses to decide these things for themselves. They are doing that rather successfully, and I do not propose to try to second-guess them.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that the Government can help from the point of view of the economic climate? Does he further agree that interest rates can be a deterrent to business expansion and new investment? Can he estimate the loss of manufacturing jobs if some aid is not given to industry? Why are the Government not providing the infrastructure to enable industry to flourish in the regions so that it can meet the competition that will arise in the 1990s?

Mr. Maude: Investment in the infrastructure is as high as investment in manufacturing industry—[Interruption.] —and both are at extremely high levels. The hon. Gentleman is right only to the extent that the economic climate for business is extremely important. That is why business in Britain is continuing to do well. He will be reassured to know that, despite the levels of interest rates being as high as they are, the investment intentions of business remain high.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the run-up to 1992, one of the most important areas is information technology manufacturing and that one of the best ways to encourage a stronger IT manufacturing base for Britain would be to encourage the greater use of European rules of Government procurement and to encourage major users, including the public sector, to buy either from the United Kingdom or on a reciprocal basis from our European partners? That would have the crucial and necessary effect of opening up the so far closed French and German markets, given that the Italian and Dutch markets are already open. Is he aware that at present our weakness is in hardware and software manufacturing and not in custom-built software?

Mr. Maude: I have no doubt that when the public procurement markets of Europe are properly open to free competition, businesses in this country will be able to supply that demand effectively and competitively.

Mr. Caborn: The Minister will agree that the preparations for 1992 have been assisted by the European regional development fund. Is he aware that the Commissioner, Bruce Millan, is on record as saying that any commitments that have been entered into with the regional development fund and the IDOX scheme will be honoured? Will the hon. Gentleman now give a commitment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that

they will stick by the commitments and agreements that they signed? Or are we about to see a further turnabout, with the stabbing in the back of the regions and a reduction in the regional development fund yet again?

Mr. Maude: I understand that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs has written to the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he will find much food for thought in that letter.

Mr. Leigh: Can my hon. Friend confirm that British manufacturing industry has nothing to fear from a market-oriented single market free from exchange controls and nothing to gain from a politician-dominated Europe tied down by a central currency and a central bank? I hope I shall not be struck dead for saying that from this corner seat of the Front Bench below the Gangway.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The single market of Europe must be a market for consumers, not one dominated by producers and, above all, not one dominated by Governments.

Monopolies and Mergers Commission

Mr. Darling: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are his present criteria for referring a bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Maude: The Government's policy remains as set out on 3 March 1988. The review, the results of which we announced at that time, concluded that the effect of a merger on competition in the United Kingdom should continue to be the main criterion in deciding whether a merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Darling: In the light of the Scottish and Newcastle referral, is it not clear that competition is by no means the main criterion applied by the Department? Does he recognise that there is considerable uncertainty in British industry as to what exactly the British Government's policy is? Is he aware that this is resulting in companies keeping up share prices to ward off hostile bids, instead of investing? In view of the present state of British industry, would it not be better to revise once again his competition policy so that we can see what it is, and stop cutting to pieces the British industrial base?

Mr. Maude: As the level of investment in business in this country is at extremely high levels, the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question is tendentious. My noble Friend and I were advised by the Director-General of Fair Trading that the Scottish and Newcastle matter should be referred to the MMC on the basis of the competition issues outlined, and the MMC concluded, on the basis of the competition issues, that it would be against the public interest. It was on the basis of those two bodies' conclusions that we decided to take the steps that we took.

Mr. Tredinnick: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the role of the MMC is to ensure that companies do not engage in price fixing, and to stop monopolies coming about? Will he also confirm that it is not the job of the MMC to tell industries how to run themselves? Is there not a danger that the MMC is going down this road, as evidenced by a number of recent and pending reports?

Mr. Maude: The role of the MMC when matters are referred to it is to decide whether, in the case of a monopoly reference, a monopoly is in existence and if it decides that it is, it makes recommendations to which the Government have to respond.

Mr. Morgan: Is not one of our endemic problems that industry is run for the benefit of takeover bidders rather than on the basis of creation of real assets? Is not one of the tragedies of the last week the announcement by Plessey, under the pressure of a take-over bid, that it will close down its gallium arsenide microcircuit business at Towcester in Northamptonshire, which will also have tragic implications for the attempts in this country, led by university college, Cardiff and the Welsh Development Agency, to build up expertise in gallium arsenide, one of the principal materials for succeeding silicon chips as a way of processing microcircuits that are faster than those produced by silicon? On silicon, we have lost out to the Japanese and now we are losing our main chance to get in with the next generation.

Mr. Maude: The purpose of business is to provide goods and services for customers, and not to build up real assets, nor to run companies for the benefit of takeovers. If companies cannot provide the goods and services that customers want, they will go out of business. It is for businesses to take commercial decisions and rely on their judgment. It is not for Government to try to second-guess them.

Post Office

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to make the Post Office more competitive from 1992.

Mr. Newton: The financial and other targets that we set or agree for the Post Office are designed to encourage improved competitiveness, efficiency and quality of service both before and after 1992.

Mr. Bowis: In the light of the perceptive assessment by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade of the abysmal delivery record of letters by the Post Office, is it not high time that the Post Office letter service had a little competition from the private sector? In particular, will my right hon. Friend make a clear declaration that he will resist any attempt by the Post Office to stitch up a European monopoly with its counterparts abroad, the purpose of which would be to keep out private enterprise competitors, to the detriment of the public of this country and the European nations?

Mr. Newton: I would neither add nor detract from what my hon. Friend described as the perceptive comments of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in the Adjournment debate on Friday. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I imagine that he is referring to the paper prepared by a group of European postal administrations as an input to various Commission discussions. Those do not represent a commitment by the Commission, the Government or the Council of Ministers. There is a great deal to discuss in the approach to 1992.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Why does not the Minister just deliver his hon. Friend a punch, and flatten him? The Government regard the Post Office as being so successful

that they use it to deliver, albeit inaccurate, leaflets about the poll tax. Why does not the Minister just tell the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that the Post Office in Britain is the most efficient in the world, and that that is why the Government use it so much?

Mr. Newton: I do not wish to behave towards my hon. Friend in a fashion different from that in which I would behave towards the hon. Gentleman. I will try to curb any instinct of aggression. As to the Post Office and the leallets, it is commendable that, within a couple of hours of having been asked to do so by the Department of the Environment, the Post Office had issued instructions all round its network.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the unfortunate and spreading practice of the Post Office sealing boxes secondary to industrial action. Can my right hon. Friend imagine any private company getting away with offering such an appalling service to its customers?

Mr. Newton: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to observe that I am reluctant to let him get away with asking that question, the subject matter of which relates to a question that appears later on the Order Paper.

Baby Products (Fire Regulations)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he has made in his considerations regarding the application of the Furniture and Furnishing (Fire) (Safety) Regulation 1988 to baby products.

Mr. Forth: I have decided that the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations should be amended to exempt the cover fabric of nursery equipment from the match test requirement. Draft amending regulations will be issued as soon as possible for consultation with industry, consumer and fire prevention interests.

Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does the Minister agree that it is important that parents concerned about small babies ensure that the foam that they use is not toxic when it burns, that it is easy for a child whose face is in contact with the fabric to be able to breathe through it, whether or not it is wet, and that the fabric is covered with a non-toxic material that is unlikely to cause problems to a baby? Will he emphasise the concern that there is still much toxic foam in households, some of which may be used on products that have been altered for the household? Parents should be concerned about using such foam near a small child.

Mr. Forth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will accept that in the changes that I have made I have struck the best balance available between trying to ensure fire safety and a degree of permeability. Those factors are all-important for the welfare of babies, but I believe that in this rather difficult area we have achieved the right balance as a result of the changes that have been made.
I hope that the changes that we have made to the safety of furniture will be and have been, of increasing benefit to the community. One of the by-products of the changes is much wider awareness of the potential toxicity of materials


when they burn. That is more widely understood, but we shall continue to watch carefully to ensure that we have the balance right.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for deciding to amend the regulations. He will agree that retaining the match test would have made outer surfaces extremely uncomfortable for babies and toddlers. When does he therefore intend to convey this good news to the industry, if he has not already done so?

Mr. Forth: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I hope soon—within days rather than weeks—to issue the draft regulations for consultation. I shall then be able to consider the responses of industry, consumers and fire prevention interests. I have every reason to believe that our amendments will receive widespread support.

EC Commissioner for Consumer Affairs

Mr. Ted Garrett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next plans to meet the European Community Commissioner for Consumer Affairs; and what he expects to discuss.

Mr. Forth: I hope to meet my European Community counterparts and Mr. Van Miert, who is Commissioner with responsibility for consumer issues, at the Council of Consumer Ministers, which the Spanish presidency has planned for 1 June. The provisional agenda is as follows.
Proposal for a Council directive amending directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of member states concerning consumer credit; draft resolution for the relaunch of EC consumer policy; Commission report on the European home and leisure accident surveillance system; exchange of views on the Commission report on consumer education; Commission presentation of the general product safety directive; and any other business.

Mr. Garrett: I am sure that the House was fascinated by that agenda, the sheer complexity of which amazed me. A consumer issue was considered yesterday in Brussels. Irrespective of whether the House is composed of smokers or non-smokers, an issue of national sovereignty arose. Is it not time that hon. Members forgot party lines when considering national sovereignty? My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I have been long-standing members of an organisation and have warned it about the loss of national sovereignty. The question of national sovereignty and consumer affairs should be placed high on the agenda. One of the countries that voted against us was France, which has a nationalised tobacco industry. Its "dangerous to health" warnings on cigarette packets are so small that one cannot see them with the naked eye. It is guilty and dishonest, and that should be pointed out to it.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman's question should more correctly be addressed to his Front Bench. It strikes me that, when we catch sight of the Labour party's policy on the European Community, the hon. Gentleman will have considerable cause to be concerned. I hope that he will take this matter up with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the stance taken yesterday in Brussels by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and for the support

which he is giving to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the concern that she expressed yesterday from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Commissioner that this country will give all the support possible to any Commission proposals that are genuinely designed to produce a free market in goods and services but will strenuously resist any bureaucratic meddling in matters that should be determined by this Parliament?

Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend has summarised effectively and well the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Cryer: When dealing with consumer choice, will the Minister raise under any other business the issue of burden-sharing arrangements for textiles? This is a Government matter and the Government must take action to ensure that in 1992 all imports of textiles to the Common Market are not directed towards the market with the best access—the United Kingdom—where half a dozen distributors cover every major city and town in the country, unlike any other member state. This kind of arrangement is important for the retention of jobs and for the textile industry in Bradford, west Yorkshire and elsewhere.

Mr. Forth: If I were able to persuade the presidency to put that matter on the agenda, it would probably be more in the context of the fact that consumers generally will benefit from the most open market arrangement that we can have. One must be extremely careful in making any market arrangements. The consumer's interest is virtually always better served by the most open and competitive arrangement that can be arrived at.

Tropical Hardwoods

Mr. Holt: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest tonnage figures for the importation of tropical hardwoods; and what were the figures for five, 10, 20 and 30 years ago.

Mr. Alan Clark: In 1988, 498,904 tonnes of tropical hardwoods were imported. The equivalent figures for 1984 and 1979 were 462,000 and 570,000.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does it not show that we are still ripping out hardwood forests at too great a rate? Would not this subject usefully be dealt with by the Commissioners in Europe, resulting in a European initiative to solve this vexed problem which seems to affect not only the hardwoods but the climate in North America? The furniture industry would welcome such an initiative wholeheartedly, but not, as with fire regulations, if we did it on our own.

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. There is growing feeling in the European Community and, indeed, in most western, sophisticated economies that steps must be taken to assist in the conservation of these materials. A variety of options is at our disposal. I am often approached by people who want to ban the import of these materials. One does not exclude that idea, but this cannot be done in isolation. Steps of this kind and other less extreme conservation measures are best addressed within a Community context.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Government look sympathetically at the idea of helping countries such as Papua New Guinea which have a law that they are trying to implement to replant their hardwoods in areas where cutting down has taken place?

Mr. Clark: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the International Tropical Timber Organisation is active in this regard. Less than two months ago I had a meeting with its executive director, Dr. Freezailah, and discussed where the organisation's efforts would be best directed. The organisation's headquarters are in Tokyo and the emphasis of its activities appears to be directed towards the Pacific basin.

Nigeria and Ghana

Mr. Speller: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to improve trade and industry links with Nigeria and Ghana; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alan Clark: The usual export services of the Department of Trade and Industry are available for exporters dealing with Nigeria and Ghana. The President of Nigeria has recently concluded a state visit to the United Kingdom and a number of useful discussions on trade-related subjects took place.

Mr. Speller: Will my hon. Friend consider reinstating export credit guarantees, which are no longer offered to Nigeria, both in view of the successful visit of President Babangida and also, in the case of Ghana, because the economy is showing signs of great success following hard work?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right about Ghana, and subject to the access criteria of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, normal underwriting judgment is being satisfied and cover is, in principle, available for exports to Ghana on both cash and longer terms of payment. For Nigeria, although cover for cash business continues to be available, there are no plans at present for any general resumption of medium-term cover.

Privilege

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a short statement to make on a matter of privilege. I have received a complaint from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) on behalf of an officer of Birmingham city council, who alleges that he has received adverse treatment in his employment as a consequence of acting as an agent for a petition against the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill. I am satisfied that the complaint raises issues that justify me in granting precedence to a motion relating to it. If the hon. Lady tables a motion today, it will appear as the first item of business tomorrow.

Social Security Operations

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about major changes to the management of social security operations.
Social security is a massive business. It accounts for over £48 billion of benefit expenditure and £2 billion on administration—that is fully 10 per cent. of gross domestic product. Some £33 billion is collected through national insurance contributions. It is one of this country's largest employers with over 80,000 staff. One way or another, social security affects the lives of practically every family in the country.
The Government are totally committed to making that business work well—for everyone. We want the offices of my Department to provide a better standard of service for the public, to know more precisely what performance is expected of them and to use their resources more efficiently. That is why, last July, I launched a study into whether a better social security service could be delivered through more autonomous operations, under my overall direction. That is the approach envisaged in the "Next Steps" report which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to the House in February last year. We have concluded that it offers the best future for the social security service.
I am today placing the report of that study in the Libraries of both Houses. It focuses on the core social security functions of collecting and recording national insurance contributions and of assessing and paying benefits. The report highlights powerful potential benefits from agency status including far greater clarity about roles, responsibilities and objectives, more personal responsibility and accountability for the quality of service for the public, a more dynamic and flexible approach to improving efficiency and performance and scope for staff to do a better and more satisfying job. The report concludes that virtually all the operational tasks of my Department could be run more effectively on the agency model.
We shall pursue these opportunities vigorously. However, we do not intend to await the creation of the agencies before making further improvements in services. I am also, therefore, laying in the House Libraries today a clear definition of our plans for the services we aim to achieve—a definition of service. I will also be sending a copy of this to all Members of Parliament. I will expect it to be the guide to the actions of the entire social security organisation. We are backing up that commitment with concrete targets for what we intend to achieve in specific areas over a number of years.
When the agencies are established, the Secretary of State will remain accountable to Parliament and the public for all aspects of social security administration and policy. Within the framework of ministerial policy there will be maximum delegation of responsibility for operational matters. The computer and communications operations of the DSS are enormous, employing about 3,000 staff, with an investment programme of £1·2 billion. They have already been reorganised into a single unit. I will go further and give it agency status by April 1990. National insurance contributions are a large source of revenue. I will organise the staff collecting and recording them in a single


management unit with a target date of April 1990. This unit will either become an agency in its own right or fall within a benefit agency.
Over 20 million people get benefits. Putting their delivery on an agency basis will be the biggest single initiative under the "Next Steps" programme. I propose to establish an agency for benefit operations by April 1991. These changes will put into agencies about 80,000 people —one sixth of all non-industrial civil servants—and will leave the headquarters with a relatively small central core. The detailed arrangements, including those in respect of finance, pay and personnel, will be the subject of further work. As the Government have made clear already, staff in the agencies have the assurance that they remain in the Civil Service. There will be no immediate changes, and any proposals affecting staff will be discussed with staff and their representatives.
We intend that, when the agencies are established, chief executives will be selected by open competition and will be appointed on limited term contracts specifying clearly defined objectives and budgets.
The initiatives that I am announcing today, together with plans already in hand, amount to a coherent strategy to transform the quality of service that social security offers. Last year's benefit reforms put the benefit system itself on the right footing. Computerisation will give us the modern tools to do the job. The definition of service that I announced today, with the clear targets underpinning it, firmly establishes the objectives that we need to pursue. The creation of agencies will provide the management framework best able to realise them. It is a programme from which the public and our staff alike stand much to gain. I hope that it will receive the support of the whole House.

Mr. Robin Cook: I begin by seeking to find common ground with the Secretary of State and welcome that, at least today, he has not announced the privatisation of the Department. For the removal of doubt, I therefore invite him to assure the House that agency status will not be a staging post to the private sector. May we have his assurance that the agencies will remain non-profit making public agencies and that the staff will retain the Civil Service status that he has promised them? Does he accept that the payment of pensions and benefits must always remain a public service and not become a commercialised business?
The Secretary of State will be aware that there is great sensitivity about the idea of making the counter operations of benefit offices responsible to an agency. The calculation and timely payment of benefit to our constituents is of legitimate political concern. The Secretary of State has informed the House that Ministers will remain accountable to Parliament. For the avoidance of doubt, will he assure us that, when hon. Members refer to individual constituents, Ministers will not retire behind the formula, "It is a matter of day-to-day administration of an agency", and thereby escape their obligation to ensure prompt and reliable payment of the benefits approved by Parliament?
The Secretary of State must appreciate that there will be great disappointment in the country that, in his statement, there is not a single commitment to a better quality of service to the claimant—[Interruption.] There is not a single reference to quality in the statement. Does the Secretary of State recall that, last year, the Moodie report found that the average waiting time in social security

offices was 70 minutes, and sometimes half a day, that six out of seven claimants complained that they were overheard when being interviewed, and that many local offices remained "forbidding and sleazy"? What obligations will be on the agency to improve the privacy of interview, raise the standards of facilities and access, and widen the availability of minority language? Is the sole serious obligation in the contract to be to stay within a fixed budget that will further squeeze the quality of service?
Can the Secretary of State deny the story on the tapes this afternoon that what he has announced today will provide for a further reduction in the cost of administering the benefits, which cannot improve the quality of service to the claimant? Is the Secretary of State really satisfied that, having reduced himself to a Gideon's army of a few hundred civil servants, he will have access to enough evidence of how in practice the system works? Is the Secretary of State not aware that his speech last week on poverty has already raised enough doubts as to whether he is in touch with reality, without putting himself further out of touch with the people in the front office of his Department, who talk daily to people in real poverty?
Does the Secretary of State not realise that his statement misses the simplest way to provide for more efficient management of welfare benefits, which is to reduce dependence on means-tested benefits? When will he and his colleagues recognise that the way forward in welfare—to an easier system to administer and to a system that would provide better dignity for the claimant—is not by constantly patching up the safety net of a means test, but by serious increases in pensions, unemployment benefit and child benefit?

Mr. Moore: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman wanted to avoid welcoming what clearly is a statement that will offer not only to the staff, but to the public as claimants of benefit, a greatly improved service. He, therefore, sought to divert the debate to matters entirely different from those contained in the statement. I do not complain in any way about that, but I hope that he would, for example, accept, as I believe most hon. Members would, that a cost-effective service, however it is offered, is obviously in the interests of the taxpayer as well as of the claimant. Decent men and women should not expect to see their money wasted when it comes to the delivery of a decent service.
I made it clear in my statement, and I repeat, that the staff working in agencies will continue to be civil servants. That is obviously important, and is why I put it in my statement. Their existing and acquired rights and conditions of service would be respected.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the privatisation of the core aspects of the benefit delivery system. As with other Members, he will not have had time yet to read the full report that will be placed in the Library, but that is covered in chapter 3. I shall paraphrase the reasons why the Government decided to go the way that they went. As the report said, we thought that the complete privatisation of contracting out was regarded as impracticable. It is difficult to conceive of the day-to-day business of quasi-judicial decisions on customers' entitlements being handled by the private sector. I, therefore, recognise his point on that matter.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that a good deal of work, especially in the computing area, is already contracted out. Obviously we would expect that to continue, and to continue with market testing in those areas.
As I see the statement, it will enhance the accountability of the social security operations to Parliament and to the public. It will in no way diminish the absolute responsibility of Ministers to the House and of Ministers to Members of Parliament for policy and for methods of administration. Obviously, most Members of Parliament, in their attempts to help their constituents, deal initially with the benefit offices. However, after the statement, as before, Members of Parliament have the absolute constitutional right not to follow that procedure. There will be far greater clarity of the process of decision-making and of responsibility. Another source of accountability will be through the chief executives of the agencies, who will have a direct responsibility and who will be able to report to the Public Accounts Committee. The statement will enhance accountability to Parliament.
I wonder when the hon. Gentleman will welcome a reaction that flows from the Moodie report, which I established because I was dissatisfied with the level of service that my benefit offices were giving. Consequential upon that, I asked for a study and I acted on the basis of that study. I asked in July—and I announced to Parliament last year—for an examination of the possibility of enhancing the service through agencies. The report, as published, is being carried out in its entirety by the Government, because they believe passionately—as the note that I shall be sending to all my staff and to Members of Parliament shows—in an improved service to customers. That is the intent behind the statement.

Sir David Price: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are grateful to my right hon. Friend for his announcement today and for his attempts to try to improve the administration of social security. Why have my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Treasury not gone the distance on improving the administration of social security and followed the recommendations of the all-party Select Committee, which reported to the House in 1973–74 on tax credit? Bringing together social security payments with tax benefits in a single system would offer numerous advantages, not least a simpler administration, which seems to be the purpose behind my right hon. Friend's statement.

Mr. Moore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I know of his diligent and long service to the Select Committee. I believe that there is a great distinction to be drawn and at some stage I would be only too happy to debate, privately or publicly, with him the 1973 report's recommendations. This statement represents an attempt to follow through the outstanding efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service to see how we can enhance, in other ways, different Government Departments' services to the public. Above all others, my Department is in daily contact with millions of our fellow citizens. I have been dissatisfied, despite the valiant efforts of our staff, about how we have served our fellow citizens. My statement represents a clear and coherent attempt to make sure that, in the long term, we correct that deficiency.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Can the Minister confirm that £22 million was wasted the last time he employed 235 consultants for his last exercise? Will he also confirm that staffing levels—I emphasise levels—will be maintained in the offices that are created? Will he also confirm that the information that is stored will not be used for commercial reasons?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has made three different points, but I do not begin to recognise his first point. The introduction of computer technology—the largest development in the western world—that is currently being undertaken in my Department, with the help of outside consultants, has been and is an outstanding success. I cannot make a specific commitment about the way in which different offices in different parts of the system will be staffed. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, for example, in the past 18 months my Department's number of staff has gone from 94,000 to 85,000 while we have seen a major reduction in work consequential on the reduction in unemployment. We have also witnessed the first stages of the introduction of a much improved computer technology system. Obviously, that system carries with it further reductions in staff. Therefore, I cannot make any assumptions about staff levels, but they will be those that seek to address the problems identified in the statement—how to give a better level of service to our customers.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend say more about how the Public Accounts Committee will be able to examine the performance of the new agencies against the targets set so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can clearly see the undoubted improvements that will flow from the changes?

Mr. Moore: In the past one of the criticisms of my Department by the PAC was that it was unable to interrogate, debate and discuss matters with the executives who run many parts of the benefit system. The agencies' chief executives will be accountable to the PAC and I am sure that the Committee and the House will welcome that. That does not, however, in any way diminish the Secretary of State's ultimate responsibility for the agencies. Beyond that, the targets that I will lay in the Library in the near future will illustrate—in the backing of the service—the overall strategic goals that I have set for the operation.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: What are the implications of the statement, which we have not yet read, for the nature of his Department? Does it not mean that the nature of his Department will be greatly altered and that it may have a profound effect on, for example, Cabinet status or something of that kind?

Mr. Moore: I know the right hon. Gentleman of old and I know that he has not said that in any way other than in a supportive tone. The future functions of my Department, post the agencies' establishment, will relate not dissimilarly to the functions of other headquarter Departments, that is, to programmes, development, policy advice, central resource allocation, performance monitoring and strategic planning. I expect that my central headquarters Department, excluding the appeals side, will, at some stage, have a staff of roughly less than 2,000. Obviously I am considering still further relocations of parts of that reduced headquarters structure from London


and I know that that will be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members representing other parts of the country.

Mr. Ray Whitney: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing some much needed new thinking into the important and massive task of distributing our social security system. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that. in implementing these interesting proposals, he will engage in full consultations with the staff as he proceeds?

Mr. Moore: Absolutely. I thought that I had made that quite clear in my opening statement. Clearly, we shall need to consult the staff. I stressed in answer to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), that the staff will retain their position and, therefore, their existing and acquired rights will be respected. Obviously, I shall want to consult fully with the staff.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Instead of glorifying in staff cuts, why will not the Minister recognise that the problems faced by benefit offices are that there are insufficient staff, who are not properly paid and have to spend much of their working time telling those in need that their needs will not be met? Why will he not address these central problems?

Mr. Moore: I wonder whether the hon. Lady, who tries to exercise her mind on these matters, could take a slightly less myopic view. For example, she might look at two areas that reflect the great improvement which our excellent staff have achieved in the past two years. The processing of supplementary benefit claims was taking on average seven days; income support now takes on average, five days. My aim is to reduce that period to three days. We have already reduced supplementary benefit error rates by a quarter with the introduction of income support and I am aiming to halve that again. The pattern of progress during the past two years illustrates the real achievements of our staff in their handling and managing of the benefit system, as opposed to the appalling description of the system given by the hon. Lady.

Mr. John Redwood: While I welcome the proposals, may I ask how they will improve the service quality for the claimant and will they include, in view of the state of some offices, a major programme of property renewal and refurbishment?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend might have noticed that, over the past year or more, there has been a substantial improvement in many of the offices in our country. We have spent a considerable amount of money and, obviously, I shall be looking to improve the overall facilities. Unless staff work, and claimants attend offices, in decent conditions, they cannot expect to receive the respect which they merit.
With regard to better services to customers and the general public, the delegation to the lowest possible level of decision-making powers on financial and personnel matters will give quicker and more sensitive responsiveness to local needs. Clear objectives for quality, which will be in the targets, and timeliness of service will be expressed as measurable performance targets. Such improvements will enhance and clarify the sort of service that claimants should expect.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State accept that, when he talks about clear targets and objectives from the point of view of administration, it would be helpful if he would consider those against the background of a definition of poverty, at least in his terms, and a strategy for the eradication of poverty in this country? What consultation has he had with the Scottish Office and what implications will this statement have for the administration of social security north of the border?

Mr. Moore: As I am sure the hon. Lady will know, I am responsible for Great Britain in this matter. Having said that, there has been detailed discussion with the Scottish Office throughout because this is to be extended throughout Great Britain. On the hon. Lady's first point, I am sure that in her rational, as opposed to her political mind, she would not begin to suggest that a third of the nation are in poverty.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Oh, yes, I do.

Mr. Moore: She would not begin to suggest that because the absurdity of that suggestion would detract from the serious efforts made by those of us to care effectively. We have been able to add to those efforts because of our economic success. It ill behoves Opposition Members, who in the poverty of their economic failure are unable to help people in real need, to pander to such nonesense.

Mr. Michael Jack: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the courage of his innovative suggestions. Can he assure me, however, that under the new arrangements the great body of knowledge about the effectiveness of the system, and whether each benefit meets the objectives that it was set to achieve, will not be lost? Will staff be involved in feeding back information about how well the benefits are doing their job in the community?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has detailed personal knowledge of these matters, particularly from his constituency experience. He has drawn my attention many times to the obvious reality that staff in our benefit offices and headquarter operations—whether in north Fylde, Newcastle or elsewhere—have knowledge that is very important to the judgment of policy. I shall continue to ensure that we use that knowledge in policy decision-making.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Now that the Secretary of State has abolished poverty by operational decree, has he any plans to abolish misery and disease in like fashion, and will these agencies help?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are less amusing when we come down to the reality of what I am trying to do, to which he does not seem to have addressed himself at all. He seems utterly uninterested in the 80,000-odd staff involved in this significant and important change, and in the 20 million-odd beneficiaries who are obviously more than interested in such a clear indication of improved services. That contemptible lack of interest is reflected in the Labour party's failure ever to be regarded as more than an irritant, rather than a party with a serious opportunity of taking office.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals. It is particularly pleasing


that there is to be a genuine delegation of his operational function to those who know best how to use it, the people on the ground. May I ask him to ensure, however, that one of the objectives of the agencies will be to give clear guidance and information to claimants?

Mr. Moore: I shall certainly take notice of that point. My hon. Friend is very much involved in these matters, and, when we develop the framework documents that will be the underlying documents for agencies, what he has said will be a significant consideration. My hon. Friend knows that when I have been dissatisfied with take-up I have not been afraid to spend taxpayers' money to try to encourage additional take-up, but information and help for claimants are an important feature of the overall benefit system.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he is suggesting is merely an administrative matter, and that no claimant who is at present refused a grant from the social fund will be given such a grant by the new chief executives to whom he has referred? If that is so, does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that when we talk of delivering a service we must also talk about the product that we are delivering? The biggest problem for DHSS office staffs over the past few years has been the longer time that it takes to interview desperately worried people who have been badly affected by the changes in the family support system that the Government have introduced, and I know that the Secretary of State will address his mind to that.
May I also ask whether members of staff allocated to work for agencies will continue to be subject to central pay negotiations, and that no attempt will be made to break up the negotiations that now affect the Civil Service?

Mr. Moore: There are two different points. I would put the hon. Gentleman's first question in an entirely different way: the people—nearly 1 million—who already benefit in the first year from the social fund will continue to benefit under the same arrangements that now exist. As for his second question, I think that he will recognise that new consultative arrangements will need to be negotiated for agencies. We intend industrial relations matters to be resolved as far as possible within the agencies themselves.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Coming on top of the simplification of the system last year and the introduction of new technology, my right hon. Friend's reforms are particularly welcome. When does he expect to be in a position to introduce such facilities as cash dispensers, so that claimants are able to obtain money that is rightly theirs as quickly as possible?

Mr. Moore: I think that there is a distinction between the structural changes that I have been discussing and the method of receipt of payment. We have been looking at and have already done some work on alternative methods of paying benefits and that work suggests that in the longer term smart cards might have potential. My Department and the Post Office have jointly been carrying out an assessment of the financial implications of using smart cards, but at this early stage it is not clear whether they would represent better value than automatic credit transfer. About a third of all new pensioners and a third of new child benefit recipients are going for automatic credit transfer. I am interested in pursuing and looking at

different methods of payment receipt as long as they are cost-effective and helpful to claimants. That is what our service is all about.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the experience of many claimants is that ministerial statements about cost-effectiveness tend in many cases to point to centralisation and remoteness? Is he aware that in my largely rural constituency there is no office of his Department and that some of my constituents have to travel as much as 25 miles to the so-called local office of the Department? May we have an assurance that the measures he has announced will not lead to further remoteness and more centralisation? Will he say whether there will be any decentralisation of jobs to Scotland? As his Department has abdicated its responsibility to give advice to people such as my constituents, and as that work is now being done by citizens advice bureaux, will the Department provide some extra funding to CABs?

Mr. Moore: I was trying to say earlier that being cost-effective does not necessarily mean giving a better but rather a more efficient service. The whole ethos of the statement is to seek to produce better services for customers and the general public, more satisfying jobs for staff and more discretion for local managers. Within that structure I would not want to be specific about what happens in any particular part of Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the decisions that I made recently about the relocaton of jobs from parts of the London office area into new service centres was to locate a major new centre in Scotland, Obviously, before making the decisions that I shall have to take about moving more headquarters staff out of the London area, out of the south-east, I shall look carefully at Scotland and other parts of the country. The service given by our staff in our Scottish office is excellent.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement and hope that it will result in an improvement in the service to claimants at DSS benefit offices. His statement about the relocation of some of these agencies out of London will be greatly welcomed by many hon. Members who represent constituencies in which unemployment is higher than necessary. I hope that he will seriously consider some relocation in the north-west where, as he well knows, some of his offices already enjoy good relations.

Mr. Moore: I can say to my hon. Friend what I said to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I have already made a decision to move one area centre to the Wigan area. It is not quite in my hon. Friend's constituency, but it is certainly in a part of the country with high-quality staff and it welcomes that relocation.

Mr. Max Madden: Is the Secretary of State aware that nothing he has said today will wipe away the suspicions of millions of people who are living in poverty that he and his ministerial colleagues are completely out of touch with the plight of those people and the conditions in which they live? I would have been very pleased if he had announced that at least one day a week would be set aside for the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues to come to places such as Bradford to talk to claimants who are tired, desperate and very


angry about the difficulties that they face in getting what they are entitled to. I should like Ministers to talk to the harassed and tired advice workers who are desperately trying to get help for those people. Why does the Secretary of State not get away from this Palace of Westminster in which he lives and meet the people who are trying to get the help which he says he is so anxious to give them?

Mr. Moore: I greet that contribution with sadness and I shall not react to the cumulative venom, irritation and bitterness of the hon. Gentleman who does not seem in any way to address the statement that I made, the intent that I seek to serve or the issues that concern us.

Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that following his most positive speech last week, about which I participated in a highly constructive discussion on the Kilroy programme this morning, the object of his Department must be to deliver a more effectively targeted system and, in particular, to bring to those who are entitled to it the excellent benefit of family credit? Does he also recognise that it is most important to maintain or raise where necessary the morale of DSS staff'? I have in mind the staff in my constituency DSS office in Taunton, who provide an excellent service for claimants.

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. I welcome his contribution on the Kilroy programme which, unfortunately, I was unable to see. My hon. Friend is right to distinguish between the important way in which the increased wealth of the country has been directed to helping those in genuine need and some of the nonsense that we sometimes hear in public debates. Today I am concentrating, as I know my hon. Friend would wish me to, given his knowledge of his Taunton office, on how we more efficiently, effectively and fairly deliver a better level of service to those whom we seek to help through our benefit system.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Minister accept that during the last few difficult years one of the most important centres of operation of his Department has been on Tyneside, which has borne the brunt of the administration of many of the changes? Is he prepared to come to the north-east to discuss his proposals and reassure people there? In that area, management, employment and training opportunities centrally depend upon the employment that his Department provides and accommodation there costs a great deal less than the £50 a sq. ft. that it costs in the Strand.

Mr. Moore: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows this, but since I have been in this job I have been to the north-east many times, specifically to visit my excellent centre of operation in the Newcastle area, and most of the units in that area. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have more than 10,000 staff there and that we are probably the largest employer in that part of the world. We have excellent staff working in first-class conditions and doing a good job for the citizens of our country. That is one of the reasons why for the last two years I have been determined to ensure that such parts of the country benefit from the kind of relocation in which I have been engaged. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the training opportunities and the improvements for staff consequential upon this decision.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: By his disappointing response to my right hon. Friend's statement, has not the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) demonstrated the intense conservatism, not to say the reactionary nature of his outlook—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must always be related to the Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Hamilton: I shall come to the relevant part of my question in a shorter time than that taken by the hon. Member for Livingston. In opposing the perestroika within the Department of Social Security which my right hon. Friend has proposed, the hon. Gentleman seems to prefer the preservation of bureaucratic empire to the efficient delivery of service to the claimant. My right hon. Friend should be consoled by the fact that after a time lag of 10 years the Labour party adopts the whole of Conservative party policy. By the year 2000 the hon. Member for Livingston will understand what we are trying to do.

Mr. Moore: Far be it from me to comment on the innate structural conservatism of the Opposition. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are attempting to think through in the latter part of the 20th century what we should be doing in the structures that we have to help staff and claimants. I had hoped for slightly less reactive response from the Opposition. They should have thought more carefully about what we are seeking to do.

Mr. Peter Pike: Does the Secretary of State accept that the main objective of the social security system must be to serve claimants? M any of them will be fearful that once again this change will result in massive savings to the Government while many claimants will be worse off. The Minister should address himself to the priority of ensuring that there are sufficient officers in the local offices to deal with the public and to the fact that changes in the rules and regulations are preventing many people from getting the assistance to which they are entitled and which they need.

Mr. Moore: I wonder how on earth the hon. Gentleman relates the first part of that rather prejudiced question to the reality that over the last decade a bigger proportion of a more successful economy, a bigger GDP, has been devoted to helping people by way of the social security system. Obviously, I do not expect him to say that in public, but I hope that in private he will consider that point. The statement is not concerned with increasing or decreasing that amount. It is concerned with how we effectively use structures and systems to deliver benefits and ensure that claimants are well served.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcome if for no other reason than that it may help to eliminate the problem that I had last weekend when a constituent brought to me a round robin letter from the DSS printed "Dear", with "Mr. Chapman" written in, saying that it regretted to advise him that, after five years of miscalculation, he owed the DSS £200-odd but that it would let him off for four years and that he would have to pay for only one year. If we can eliminate such nonsense by having agencies, it will be very welcome.
Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to rebut the civil servants in his Department who wrote a report


saying that if senior civil servants went to live in the north-east of England they would find it an alien culture? If they are to have better industrial relations with the 10,000 people in that part of the world senior civil servants ought to relocate there.

Mr. Moore: On the last point, I obviously do not know of the document to which my hon. Friend has referred. If he will let me have it, I may be able to comment. It does not fit with the fact that the largest single centre of operations of my Department is in the north-east, as I said earlier. I have said time and time again, as have my officials, that we are delighted with the surroundings and with the staff. We have excellent support and contributions from them. I trust that my hon. Friend will welcome the enhanced responsibility and the greater delegation of responsibility that will enable us to get better results for his constituents from our excellent staff.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Secretary of State checked the position with the Common Market? Is he aware that if the Government do not check things out with the Common Market bureaucrats, they may end up as his right hon. Friend did yesterday being out-voted 11:1? Does he recall that the Common Market overturned the position on the invalid care allowance? Does not he understand that the Common Market has a stranglehold over the Government and that he should check that everything is all right so that we do not have to consider orders late at night? Which agency will be in charge of the provision of cardboard boxes on the Embankment?

Mr. Moore: I must draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the utter and complete support that the hon. Gentleman clearly wishes to give her. No stronger endorsement of her actions on the Community could have come from the House. I will not check with the NUM executive before I make further decisions.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome my right hon. Friend's thoroughly sensible reforms. Will he confirm two things? First, will he confirm that, for the first time, we shall have in this country a clear arm's length relationship between those responsible for delivering the service and those responsible for monitoring its quality? Secondly, will he confirm that in considering the quality of service being delivered it will be possible to introduce competitive comparison so that we can see which parts of the country are better than others? In such a comparison I am certain that the DSS office in Canterbury, with which I have had many dealings, will come out well.

Mr. Moore: As I have said two or three times, clarity of responsibility and the way in which it is delegated will improve the service that can be given. Clearly, local managers will want to look at the nature of their targets and the degree to which they can achieve the national targets that will be set. We shall have to consider carefully whether these should be published. Obviously there will be special circumstances in some areas with particular difficulties, and it may be invidious for some parts of the country to have those published. I shall consider the point because the way in which targets are adhered to is the way in which service is improved. Therefore, it is an important feature of the proposals at local as well as national level.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How much are the chief executives to be paid? Will the proposal not be damaging to the morale of excellent managers? Most hon. Members have first-class managers in their areas, as I do in Bathgate. They are extremely helpful and skilful and have given their lives to their jobs. Will not their morale be dented, to say the least, if chief executives are drawn from outwith the service?

Mr. Moore: I did not say that they would be drawn from outside the service. I said that there would be open competition, which is entirely different. I, like the hon. Gentleman, have the highest regard for many of the senior civil servants with whom I have had the privilege to work over 10 years. I trust that they will have no difficulty facing the competition that we are talking about. The framework documents will deal with the way in which we develop performance-related pay within the Civil Service. We shall consider all that with our friends in the Treasury over the next few months. I do not believe that the devolved responsibility that we are talking about will do other than encourage the performance that the hon. Gentleman and I expect to see from the Civil Service.

Mr. Tony Favell: My right hon. Friend's plans to streamline the service and to make the lives of those who work in it more rewarding are most welcome. The service that I and my constituents get in Stockport is second to none. One great headache is the take-up of family credit. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) mentioned the tax credit scheme. Will my right hon. Friend consider again the possibility of family credit being paid through the wage packet or at least giving the recipient the option of having it paid in that way?

Mr. Moore: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would allow me to develop a debate on family credit other than to say that the new campaign for take-up is going incredibly well and that large numbers of people are applying. I am conscious of my hon. Friend's recognition of the work of the Stockport office. I have visited it and I agree with what he said. I hope that he will help to see that more is done, for example, on family credit in North Fylde where excellent work is done by the staff in that headquarters.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Minister tell us the total cost of the plans and the consultants who will be employed? One of my constituents who had to grovel for a few pounds from the social fund loan scheme will be interested to know how many millions of pounds will be poured into this. Would it not be a better solution to ensure that more money is spent on refurbishing premises, that more staff are employed at decent rates of pay, and that there is a halt to the Government's attack on the poorest by cuts because of expenditure by his Department on fortifications at every DSS counter? Would not such priorities lead to a better scheme than the lopsided arrangement that he has proposed?

Mr. Moore: . I have to stress that there have been no cuts but a continuing pattern of increased expenditure. Obviously the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the beginning of my statement when I said precisely that my Department is involved in massive expenditure of £48 billion on benefit. I stressed that £2 billion would be spent on administration—not an insignificant amount. Within


the overall expenditure pattern the efficient way in which that is spent will be part and parcel of the development of the whole agency structure.

Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend will recall that I wrote to him to congratulate Mr. Griffiths and his excellent team on the way in which they conduct the Department's affairs on the Isle of Wight. Can my right hon. Friend say what comfort there will be in the statement for the taxpayer when the Department of Employment offices are co-located with social security offices, giving rise to the anomaly whereby a claimant has to go to one office to sign on before going to the other—a tremendous duplication of effort and of employees? Does he agree that it is clear from the statement from the Opposition Front Bench that Opposition Members have not visited refurbished offices which, within days of opening, are reduced to the standard of a four-ale, spit and sawdust pub, where claimants use the floor as an ashtray, damage the new furniture and often spend a lot of time insulting the excellent staff?

Mr. Moore: I acknowledge that my hon. Friend has written to me complimenting his local office I also recognise that the taxpayer will benefit, as will staff and claimants. The taxpayer will see a more cost-effective, more efficient and businesslike management of social security operations. That is bound to benefit the taxpayer in the long run. Equally, my hon. Friend was right to remind the House that there has been an extensive programme throughout Great Britain of expenditure on refurbishing social security offices. That has been going on for a considerable period. In many parts of the country that is acknowledged.

Mr. Robin Cook: While the Minister's statement has been proceeding, we have been able to obtain the report that he placed in the Library. I invite him to comment on paragraph 5·5, which states that the agency
should enable Ministers to adopt a more explicitly arm's length approach to the day-to-day details of how operations are run. In answering on particular cases, for instance, they

could distinguish more clearly between issues which were the delegated responsibility of the Agency and those which were not.
If those two sentences do not mean reduced accountability to Parliament and to constituency Members, what do they mean?

Mr. Moore: I fully appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has not had time to consider the point he just made., in referring to a quotation from the agency study report. The hon. Gentleman might have listened to my remark that concerned policy decision-making of the Government consequential upon their own decisions as opposed to the recommendations of the report. Today, I have been talking about the report's recommendations on agency structures. I answered specifically in regard to the Government's accountability and that of Ministers.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: That is what you said before.

Mr. Moore: It might be easier for me to complete the sentence more quickly if the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), can contain her sedentary interruptions.
The present situation, whereby the majority of right hon. and hon. Members write to local offices will continue post the establishment of the agencies. But they do not have to do so, and will retain post the change the absolute constitutional right to write to Ministers. That may be a less effective way of helping their constituents and in most cases will, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) says, delay matters. The rights of right hon. and hon. Members will not change in any way, insofar as there will now be agenices having effective executive heads accountable to the PAC.
Right hon. and hon. Members may find it preferable to refer specific administrative problems and queries to the agency in the first instance, if they are seeking effective change. If right hon. and hon. Members have challenges to make on policy or administration methods, they will continue to be matters for Ministers, as they always have been. Right hon. and hon. Members will be in no way constrained from exercising their constitutional rights.

National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride

Mr. Adam Ingram: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the future of the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride.
The Government announced today in a written answer that they propose to restructure and privatise one of the world's foremost research establishments. That will mean more than 200 jobs being lost in a key area of innovative industrial and engineering research. Employees remaining in the restructured organisation will be compulsorily transferred out of the Civil Service, with a loss of pension rights and certain conditions of service.
The national engineering laboratory is a world leader in future developments such as alternative energy, biotechnology and robotics—and every area of industry has gained from its work. Vehicles, ships, construction, manufacturing, new materials, oil rigs, pumps, fans and even sports equipment have all been improved by the laboratory's innovative and speculative research, which will all be put at risk by the Government's decision.
Instead of having dynamic, self-motivating research teams working at the forefront of technological change, research will be undertaken only on the basis of what profit there is in it. The overall good done to British industry by the laboratory's work will no longer be an overriding feature.
The national engineering laboratory is an important public resource established to benefit all of British industry. That resource is destroyed by the Government's announcement, which was sneaked through on the back of a written answer—showing contempt for the NEL's work force and complete disregard for the future of this country's manufacturing industry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the future of the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride.
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but, as he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. I hope that he will find other means of bringing the matter before the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the manner in which the announcement concerning the future of the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride has been dealt with by the Minister concerned. I ask for your views, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the practice whereby Government Ministers arrange for one of their right hon. or hon. Friends who has no connection with the constituency involved to put down a question on a topic dramatically affecting the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). You must agree, Mr. Speaker, that that practice is deplorable. What is wrong with the Government telling my hon. Friend of their decision and then allowing him to put down a question, so that he would receive a reply rather than an English Conservative Member? Would that not be more considerate in the difficult circumstances confronting the constituency Member concerned? It is a final insult when an hon. Member representing a constituency 600 or 700 miles away, and who has never been in East Kilbride in his life, puts down a question and receives a ministerial reply affecting the livelihods of 400 or 500 people in the constituency of one of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be unwise of me to express a view on the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I take note of them and have some sympathy with his point of view.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, can your remark about it being unwise to comment be interpreted as meaning that in your public and private capacity you deplore what has been done as being incredibly bad manners towards the House of Commons? Is it not a fact that even going back as far as Jack Maclay, the Viscount Muirshiel, whenever Secretaries of State for Scotland had difficult information to impart to Labour Members, they were invited to the Scottish Office and the Minister responsible had the good manners to explain beforehand what was about to happen? Is not one of the Government's problems that they lack good manners?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should reinforce my observation that it is unwise for Mr. Speaker to say too much about his own views.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 9 JUNE

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Chris Butler
Mr. Gavin Strang
Mr. George J. Buckley

Defamation

Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the bringing of proceedings for defamation.
Some people are rich and some people are famous, and some people are both. If one is famous, more people are likely to sit up and take notice if one is unfairly maligned. But if one wishes to do something about retrieving one's good name, it is more important to be rich because libel and slander actions tend to be long drawn out and costly. One should not even think about starting such an action unless one can lay hands on £50,000 as a bare minimum.
Many people imagine that defamation cases invariably involve the media but my interest in the matter was originally aroused by that of my constituent John Munro who, in his time, has probably written to nearly every right hon. and hon. Member of the House. Mr. Munro claims that he was libelled in letters when he worked for Pendle council a dozen years ago. He subsequently took counsel's opinion and was advised that he had a better than even chance of convincing a jury that he was the victim of defamation. Our former colleague, Sir Leon Brittan QC, was also consulted and concluded that, in his opinion
a jury would be likely to find, on the balance of probabilities
that Mr. Munro's accuser was "guilty of malice".
But despite having a case, my constituent was never able to bring it because, as a result of the alleged libel, he was dismissed and has been permanently unemployed ever since. The fact that his unemployment has cost the taxpayer at least £150,000 in the intervening period suggests that making it easier for people without substantial means to come to court may not necessarily always result in an extra burden on the Exchequer.
My Defamation Bill is intended to ensure that the legal process is open to all as a means of righting a wrong when it affects a person's reputation and perhaps his ability to earn a living. Not being a lawyer, I tread on this ground, littered with pitfalls, with some trepidation. I have come to the conclusion that there is no single solution to the problem, so my measure incorporates several options which could be open to people in different circumstances.
Defamation is the only civil action for which legal aid is unavailable. While accepting that this can be unfair, successive Governments have argued that in these cases there are unique difficulties in establishing before a trial whether a plaintiff has a reasonable case and should therefore be granted financial assistance. The extra cost to the taxpayer resulting from a proliferation of expensive cases would be, it is said, insupportable.
I agree that it is more difficult to make an assessment than in, say, cases of personal injury. Nevertheless, it is not impossible. This Bill therefore makes legal aid available for defamation, limited in the first instance to seeking counsel's opinion. Only if that is favourable would further legal aid be granted. That was a recommendation, supported by the Bar Council and the Law Society, of the Faulks committee on defamation which reported in 1975 but which was never implemented.
Legal aid is not the solution for all potential litigants. For example, those above the legal aid limits would be excluded, even though their incomes were totally insufficient to support proceedings for defamation. One of the Government's Green Papers on the reform of the legal

profession raises the possibility of introducing contingency fees which exist in the United States. The prospect of no win, no fee, arrangements has not received an enthusiastic reception here, but the system could be particularly appropriate in some defamation cases, in that it could enable some cases to proceed without the bulk of the cost falling on the taxpayer. As the Green Paper suggests, contingency fee arrangements could be particularly helpful to
small litigants who can be expected rarely to resort to the courts for the resolution of their disputes".
I recognise that there are difficulties to be considered, but it seems to be an option for defamation cases which should be included in the Bill.
I also commend to the House, and incorporate in my Bill, the proposal of Mr. Justice Hoffman which would enable plaintiffs who are willing to confine their claim to an order for correction and damages of less than £5,000 to apply to have a decision reached by a judge on the basis of affidavit evidence without a jury. For many victims of the media, a correction published within a reasonable period and modest damages would be greatly preferable to the prospect of years of stress and uncertainty, with issues raised again long after the event.
I opposed the Right of Reply Bill as unworkable, too wide-ranging and as an unreasonable rein on press freedom. This proposal, on the other hand, provides a sensible solution to numerous cases of injustice. It also has obvious benefits for defendants who, under the present system, as Mr. Justice Hoffman points out,
complain that however unmeritorious or trivial the claim, the costs of defending force them to make an offer to settle. This pressure,
he states
feeds upon itself and has been increased by recent large jury awards".
Many people have been amazed not only by the scale of recent awards of libel damages, but by their apparent inconsistency. Uncertainty of this kind is not a good thing for plaintiffs, for defendants or for the interests of justice generally. So 1 propose to include in my Bill a provision, which does not currently exist, for judges to be able to direct juries on the appropriate price bracket they should consider. This suggestion has been endorsed by the distinguished libel lawyer Mr. Peter Carter-Ruck. Interestingly, a statement by Mr. Carter-Ruck was quoted in the Faulkes report, and it was valid in 1975. He said —this is indicative of the way in which things have changed—
A number of newspapers of national importance to the community are fighting to maintain their slender margins of profit and for whom to fight a heavy libel action could be a crippling blow".
Today the wheel has turned full circle. When considering whether to thrust their knives into a potential victim, some of the now profitable tabloids which care little for high standards of journalism make an assessment of his or her financial standing, which determines an ability to fight back. They may calculate that damages arising out of a likely libel action are outweighed by the extra circulation that they can hope to achieve. It used to be, "Print and be damned." It is now, "Print an extra million copies." That cannot be right and something should and must be done.
In response to concern about the right of reply and the protection of privacy, my hon. Friend the Minister of


State, Home Office, announced an imminent review of the press. If my Bill fails to proceed, the Government should adapt their objectives in the context of that review.
The interaction between the proposals that I have put forward must be discussed. As a package I believe that they overcome the problem of high additional costs falling on the taxpayer, and all its provisions would weed out petty cases of little merit. This measure is timely because of concern about media abuses and the debate about the future of the legal profession.
The present system is a lottery, but it has a high entry charge, which most people cannot afford to pay. Good luck to Elton John, Koo Stark, Jeffrey Archer and George Michael, who are among those who have won well-publicised defamation cases or achieved large settlements. We need, however, a new system to replace the outdated Defamation Act 1952—one which recognises that a poor man's good name is just as worthy of protection as that of his wealthier neighbour. That is what my Bill is about.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Peter Archer, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. David Blunkett, Mr. Chris Butler, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mrs. Ann Taylor and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

DEFAMATION BILL

Mr. Gary Waller accordingly presented a Bill to facilitate the bringing of proceedings for defamation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 6

DISCRIMINATION AS RESPEC1S VOCATIONAL TRAINING

'(1) The following section shall be substituted for section 14 of the 1975 Act

"Persons concerned with provision of vocational training
14.—(1) It is unlawful, in the case of a woman seeking or undergoing training which would help fit her for any employment, for any person who provides, or makes arrangements for the provision of, facilities for such training to discriminate against her—

(a) in the terms on which that person affords her access to any training course or other facilities concerned with such training, or
(b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford her such access, or
(c) by terminating her training,or
(d) by subjecting her to any detriment during the course of her training.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) discrimination which is rendered unlawful by section 6(1) or (2) of section 22 or 23, or
(b) discrimination which would be rendered unlawful by any of those provisions but for the operation of any other provision of this Act."

(2) The following section shall be substituted for section 13 of the Race Relations Act 1976—

"Persons concerned with provision of vocational training
13.—(1) It is unlawful, in the case of an individual seeking or undergoing training which would help fit him for any employment, for any person who provides, or makes arrangements for the provision of, facilities for such training to discriminate against him—

(a) in the terms on which that person affords him access to any training course or other facilities concerned with such training; or
(b) by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him such access; or
(c) by terminating his training; or
(d) by subjecting him to any detriment during the course of his training.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) discrimination which is rendered unlawful by section 4(1) or (2) or section 17 or 18; or
(b) discrimination which would be rendered unlawful by any of those provisions but for the operation of any other provision of this Act."

(3) In section 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (discriminatory training by certain bodies)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "a training body" and "it appears to the training body" there shall be substituted "any person" and "it reasonably appears to that person" respectively;
(b) in subsection (2), for "it appears to a training body" and "the training body" there shall be substituted "it reasonably appears to any person" and "that person" respectively; and
(c) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (3)—

(3) The preceding provisions of this section shall not apply to any discrimination which is rendered unlawful by section 4(1) or (2).".'.—[Mr. Nicholls.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With the new clause it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

Mr. Nicholls: The Opposition moved two new clauses in Committee which sought to amend the Race Relations Act 1976. We looked at those new clauses on their merits and we accept that many aspects of the changes that Opposition Members proposed are desirable and would improve the operation of the Race Relations Act by removing bureaucracy. However, we could not agree to the Opposition new clauses as they stood because of difficulties with their drafting. We therefore agreed, subject to the Opposition withdrawing the new clauses, to introduce a Government new clause which would achieve the amendments that the Opposition were seeking and which would also amend where necessary the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause 6 would amend section 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and section 13 of the Race Relations Act 1976 respectively. The two sections are identical in all relevant respects. Their main purpose is to bring within the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals sex and race discrimination by certain bodies which provide employment-related training, while not depriving employers who already train of the defences that they could at present enjoy under section 4 of the 1976 Act.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 are consequential amendments which deal with when the new clause will come into effect and amend references to the current section 14 of the 1975 Act and sections 13 and 37 of the 1976 Act in the Employment Bill, the 1975 Act, the 1976 Act and the 1988 Employment Act to take account of the provisions of the new clause. Amendment No. 17 inserts a reference to training in the long title of the Bill.
Therefore, new clause 6 and the amendments being taken with it fulfil exactly the aims that Opposition Members had in moving their original clause. I commend the new clause and the consequential amendments to the House.

Ms. Jo Richardson: The Minister is right to say that the new clause and consequential amendments flow from amendments which the Opposition moved in Committee and withdrew on the undertaking that the Government would look into the matter.
As we pointed out in Committee, the clause that we moved at that stage had been drafted by the Commission for Racial Equality. I am a bit surprised to find that it did not get it right. As I also said in Committee, one day we shall have to have a seminar on drafting because the Government always seem to have the edge on drafting.
The purpose of our new clause was to extend the protection of the legislation against racial discrimination to the treatment of trainees on work experience and work placements. The Government have given effect to that. The wording of their new clause is substantially the same as that of ours, which was drafted by the CRE. It extends protection in the same way. It also extends to women trainees the protections provided in the two equality

statutes—the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. I am glad that the Government have done what they said that they would do. They have kept their word on this occasion.

Mr. Nicholls: As always.

Ms. Richardson: We shall see about that.
The new clause will do nothing but good.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

POWER TO EXEMPT DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOUR OF LONE PARENTS IN CONNECTION WITH TRAINING FOR EMPLOYMENT

`(1) If the Secretary of State by order so provides in relation to any description of training for employment specified in the order, this section shall apply to such special treatment afforded to lone parents in connection with any such training (whether by the payment of allowances or the fixing of special conditions for access to facilities for training or otherwise) as is specified or referred to in the order.
(2) Where this section applies to any treatment afforded to lone parents, neither the treatment so afforded nor any act done in the implementation of any such treatment shall be regarded for the purposes of the 1975 Act as giving rise to any discrimination falling within section 3 of that Act (discrimination against married persons for purposes of Part II of that Act).
(3) In this section—

(a) "employment" and "training" have the same meaning as in the Employment and Training Act 1973; and
(b) "lone parent" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of any regulations made in pursuance of section 20(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1986 (income support).'—>[Mr. Cope.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 4.

Mr. Cope: This clause stems from the provision in employment training of special help for lone parent3. When ET was designed by the Manpower Services Commission in January 1988, it included special help for lone parents with child care problems. As the House will recall, we accepted all the MSC's proposals on ET, including this one. As a result, lone parents of either sex can receive child care costs of up to £50 a week per child if they need to pay for child care when they undertake training on ET.
These advantages are available to lone parents, and lone guardians, regardless of their sex or marital status. We accepted these special provisions for lone parents being proposed by the MSC because they are a disadvantaged group who find it difficult to return to the labour market. These measures help them to do so and were widely welcomed when they were first proposed by the MSC and when they were introduced into ET. Many lone parents who would not otherwise have been able to enter ET and return to the labour market are being helped by these provisions. Over 3,500 lone parents in ET are


receiving help with child care costs. About 2,000 lone parents are now in training, having entered through the special eligibility route, which we also introduced.
However, as things stand, we may have to cancel this help because of an interpretation placed on marital discrimination under section 3 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by an industrial tribunal in relation to our payment of child care costs for lone parents in ET. This has placed our special arrangements in jeopardy. Without a clause like this, we would have to pay the same amount to every parent in ET. That would magnify the cost and nullify the advantage that lone parents receive.
I do not believe that that was the intention of section 3 of the 1975 Act. When they introduced the Act, the Labour Government of the day said that the intention was to attack restrictive practices by employers against the employment of married women—the so-called marriage bar. This is a far cry from the sort of special help for lone parents that we are providing under ET. We want to continue to give this special help to lone parents, and that is what the clause is designed to do. It will remove from the scope of marital discrimination under section 3 of the Sex Discrimination Act special treatment afforded to lone parents in named training programmes. It is an enabling clause. It will permit the Secretary of State to make orders specifying special arrangements for access to training, or special payments for lone parents. The Secretary of State would have to specify the particular programme or programmes to which the arrangements would apply. The order would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
4.45 pm
We shall introduce such an order with regard to employment training to continue the arrangements that I have outlined. We want to continue the status quo in ET and to safeguard the important existing provisions for lone parents. Therefore, if the clause is passed and the Bill becomes law, I propose to come back to the House with a specific order for that purpose in due course. Meanwhile, I commend the new clause and the associated amendment to the House.

Ms. Richardson: The Opposition would have preferred it if the Government had drafted a new clause that would have opened up training provision and child care allowances for women in general. The Minister acknowledged that there was a difficulty—in other words, a single group, in this case lone parents, is being catered for specially. We understand the reasons for that. We shall not oppose what the Government are doing because half a loaf is better than none, and lone parents are in a special position. Some 90 per cent. of the 1 million lone parents are women, and many of them are desperate for jobs and training, and need considerable help.
Although we shall not oppose the new clause, we are committed to opening up training provision and child care provision in general, and regard this simply as a first step. It would have been nice if the Government, with their recent but much vaunted support for child care in the 1990s with the demographic changes that are coming about, had been able to be generous and, as well as giving this special provision to one-parent families on ET, extended it right across the board to all women. However,

we shall not get any more out of the Government and at least this new clause will be of benefit for one-parent families. Therefore, I welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

QUALIFYING HOURS FOR EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS

`The 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act shall be amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph 3 of Schedule 13 (computation of period of employment), the words "for sixteen hours or more" shall be left out.
(b) paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Schedule 13 shall cease to have effect.'.—[Ms. Richardson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms. Richardson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss new clause 18—Amendment to computation of the period of employment—
'In schedule 13 to the 1987 Act (Computation of the perod of employment—

(a) for the references to "sixteen hours" in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 there shall be substituted references to "ten hours".
(b) for the references to "eight hours" in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 there shall be substituted references to "five hours.".'.

Ms. Richardson: New clause 1, if passed, would mean that all employees would qualify for major employment rights from their first day of employment. By major employment rights I mean such rights as the right to seek redress before an industrial tribunal, the right to redundancy pay, the right to time off to look for another job when the employee has been made redundant, the right for the job back after maternity leave and to a higher rate of maternity pay. Currently, employees qualify for those rights after two years' continuous service if they work more than 16 hours a week or after five years' service if they work between eight and 16 hours a week.
New clause 1 would put all employees on the same footing. From day one of their employment, regardless of how few or how many hours they work each week, all employees would qualify for full employment rights and, much as they do now, would be protected against discrimination on the grounds of sex, race or trade union membership. All women would qualify for the higher rate of maternity pay—90 per cent. of salary. In this day and age, it is scandalous that women must work for two years to achieve that right. If they do not do so, they receive only 05.25 a week. The Government surely realise that the financial needs of a pregnant woman are not affected by their having worked for six months or one year. The plain fact of the matter is that if a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant, and all the other considerations do not affect her condition. The qualifying criteria disproportionately hit women. Nine out of 10 part-time workers are women. Nine out of 10 people who must work five years or more part time to obtain rights, or who fall completely outside employment rights, are women—the disadvantaged majority of the population.
Three-fifths of part-time workers are women with dependent children. Labour Members do not devalue


part-time work. We recognise its value to employers and its practicality for employees, which is why we feel strongly that part-timers should have full and proper rights.
Part-time work has become a major feature of the British economy since the last war. In 1951, only one in 25 employees worked part-time, but today it is as many as one in four. Many of the new employment opportunities about which the Government are wont to boast are part-time. All projections show that the trend will continue into the 1990s. Surely it is time that the Government recognised the changing labour market and adjusted our employment laws accordingly. Apart from Ireland, we are the only country in the European Community to discriminate between part-time and full-time workers. Is that not a scandal? The Select Committee on European Legislation described the legislation as "arbitrary".
Labour Members object to employers employing more and more part-timers precisely because part-timers have few or no employment rights. Companies use part-timers because they allow them what the Government call a "flexible labour market". Labour Members are interested in a flexible market, but we want it to be genuinely flexible and to bend in favour of employees and employers. Any part-time employer will confirm that the market is flexible in favour of the employer.
Too often the Government talk of the flexible attitude to employment when what they truly mean is the right of management to hire and fire at will. Companies use part-timers to save on wages. A woman in part-time, non-manual employment earns on average 48 per cent. of a full-time man's wage, and 61·3 per cent. if she is in a manual industry. It is scandalous to think that in 1989 women still earn so little compared with a man's average wage. The true position is likely to be worse as those figures are based on the new earnings survey, which excludes employees whose earnings fall below the threshold for income tax. It is estimated that 25 per cent. of part-time workers are not included in the survey. If one made a projection, it would show that the figures are much worse than they are at present.
Companies use part-time workers to avoid pension payments and holiday entitlement. Using two part-timers instead of one full-timer, they can save on national insurance contributions. Labour Members are in favour of job sharing, but we are not in favour of job splitting, which is preferred by employers. The National Union of Public Employees, which represents many part-time workers, has made some simple but interesting calculations. An employer employing two part-time workers on £39 a week pays no national insurance contributions, but for a full-timer on £78 a week the employer must pay in excess of £5 a week. Part-timers lose out on contributory national insurance benefits, and if they are sacked they are not entitled to unemployment benefit. They can also lose out on profit-sharing agreements, occupational sick pay, special leave entitlements, early retirement provisions, staff discount schemes and subsidised loans. All those benefits are offered not to part-timers but to full-timers. Part-timers lose out all round. Employers exploit that, and in their actions enjoy the full support of the Government.
This Government increased the qualifying period from six months to two years for employment rights. A couple of years ago, this Government veteod an EEC draft directive—they are fond of doing so—designed to give equal rights to part-timers and full-timers throughout Europe. In the 1986 White Paper, "Building Businesses

… Not Barriers", this Government proposed reducing employment rights still further. The proposals included changing the eight to 16 hours threshold to 12 to 20 hours. Employees falling within those hours would have to work five years to qualify. Those working less than 12 hours would lose all their rights. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), is not present—yes, he is; that shows just how invisible he is—but at the beginning of the year he said that the proposals could not come into force. I wonder whether he will repeat that assurance. He has been making many notes as I have been speaking. Will he assure the House that he will not attempt to subject race, sex or trade union discrimination to any qualifying criteria?
The Labout party is committed to full employment rights for all employees. If people take part time-work because no full-time work is available, we shall endeavour to ensure that the absence is genuine and that an employee's pay does not suffer. We shall also endeavour to unscramble the vicious circle in which many women find themselves. For many women, part-time work is the only way of combining work and family responsibilities such as running the home, looking after children and sick, disabled or elderly relatives arid, often, their husbands. Some 63 per cent. of women who work part time have dependent children, compared with only 21 per cent. of women who work full time. The reduction in social services engineered by the Government, together with their dismissive attitude to child care facilities, makes this problem worse.
5 pm
Yesterday, I briefly took part in a debate on child care which was organised by the European Movement. All the parties were invited and all except one sent a representative to discuss their plans. Guess which one did not? The Tory party. That fact was noted.
Unfortunately, part-time work is not always available in the better-paid occupations and, as a result, women returning from maternity leave are often forced into low-paid part-time jobs, and the vicious circle continues. The only way out is to open up to part-time workers jobs in all occupations and at all levels. The first step is to guarantee the same rights for everyone. The trade union movement is aware of this idea and in the past two years has taken major steps to recruit part-time workers. The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Transport and General Workers Union have carried out a "Link Up" campaign and have done an excellent job in informing the nation's 6 million temporary and part-time women workers of their limited rights. When new clause 1 becomes law—either now, if the Minister accepts it, or after the next general election when there is a decent Employment Act—those rights will be the same as for everyone else.
I challenge the Government: if they are committed to the idea of women joining the work force and to the concept that part-time work is a good thing for people to do, and not just something that is convenient for employers, they will support the new clause. We shall rejoice at that.

Mr. James Wallace: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the remarks by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson).
New clause 18 differs from new clause 1 because we believe that there should be a qualifying period, although it is short compared with that provided for in the present statutory provisions. We argue that there should be a minimum number of average hours worked per week before an employee can take a claim to an industrial tribunal. We make that distinction because we are not in favour of abolishing the qualifying period. There must be some benchmark by which it is decided that a person is in regular employment. On purely practical grounds, I foresee difficulties under new clause 1 in determining whether a person is in employment.
Many of the arguments that I would advance in support of new clause 18 are similar to those that were advanced by the hon. Member for Barking. Given demographic forces, it is clear that the size of the work force is likely to fall over the coming decades and that people will be persuaded to return to the labour market to do part-time work. That trend has already begun. On Second Reading and in Committee it was said that the Bill's purpose was to sweep away barriers and to encourage people to return to the labour force. New clause 18 would provide one way to encourage people to take up part-time work.
Working 10 hours a week is equivalent to working a few hours every afternoon. The offer of rights to part-time workers could act as a positive incentive to bring people back into the labour market. Steps should be taken to give people more rights. People in part-time employment often do not have as many rights as full-time workers or have the protection offered by health and safety legislation. One of the subsequent new clauses deals with that matter, about which the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is concerned. Psychological barriers prevent people from taking up part-time work.
On a more technical matter, employees can lose some of their rights even if they have been working for a company for more that five years if they do not work more than an average of eight hours a week. As people get older, they may see more sense in working fewer hours. Society would find it unacceptable if the rights of people who had spent a considerable part of their lives working for a company declined as their working hours decreased.
I shall not detain the House because the hon. Member for Barking has covered many points. When legislating on employment rights, it is our duty not to ignore the contribution made by a substantial part of the work force who are working part time and, as the Treasury Bench constantly reminds us, playing a valuable part in our economic life. They are entitled to rights and protection. We should encourage more people to join the labour force. New clause 18 would do that in a more modified way than new clause 1. We believe that there must be a qualifying period. Although we shall support new clause 1—to show our support for the principle behind it—I believe that new clause 18 would, in practice, be more workable.

Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) put our case so powerfully and conclusively from the Labour Front Bench that I thought that the Minister would immediately get up and say that he accepted the new clause, and we could have disposed of it. I can think of no good argument that he can

produce against my hon. Friend's speech. It appears, however, that the Government may be thinking of resisting our proposition.
There has been a transformation in the labour market in terms of the numbers in part-time employment. The House of Commons and anyone who seeks to protect workers must take account of all the new developments. The last Labour Government surveyed what was happening and introduced for the first time provisions to protect maternity grants and introduced provisions to protect women. I cannot pretend that we took the legislation as far as we would have wished, but we did our best. We put into operation the Equal Pay Act 1970, which had been introduced five years before by Barbara Castle when she was at the Department of Employment and Productivity.
Given the development of our labour market, it is necessary to have legislation of this character. The Minister will probably protest and say, "This new clause will make it more difficult to take people back into employment or get people into employment." That is a good excuse for having no protection. The Government will probably continue resisting these measures until the last moment. They will be swept away because of their attitude on this and other matters.
This measure will have to be introduced by a Labour Government—that is by far the best approach. Alternatively, the Government may be humiliated on this matter, as they have been on so many others. The discussions in the European Parliament are bound to affect legislation of this kind. There is no doubt that at some stage the Government will have to decide whether to catch up with the legislation that is made under European Community arrangements. The Government have a shameful record in having dodged the principles and practices introduced in reasonable European reforms. They have an even more shameful record, if that is possible, in going back on understandings under International Labour Organisation arrangements which have been in existence for generations. They have shown that, wherever they can, they seek out some way in which to retreat from the advances that have been made in this area.
The case has now become overwhelming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking explained, part-time employment has properly become an essential part of employment. We are not complaining about that. However, the Government and the country generally must accommodate such work and ensure that we obtain justice for women, young people and others who are part-time workers. The only way in which that will be achieved is by a change in the law. I hope that the Minister will show a little generosity and accept new clause 1. If he does not accept new clause 1, either a similar proposal will be introduced by the next Government or it will be introduced even more quickly, because the Government will have to bow to what is done in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking referred to Britain's record in this matter. Only Britain and Ireland lag behind other European Community countries and that is shameful. Part-time employment has increased in many other EC countries in exactly the same way and it is a common phenomenon of modern society. This Government are pretty well the most reactionary Government in Western Europe and that is why, I presume, we shall get another no from the Minister today.

Mr. Nicholls: This has been a short debate, but it has not been without its interesting points. Before I deal with the remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I want to deal with some of the general propositions advanced by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson).
We are dealing with two approaches to the same problem. First, there is the optimistic—or unrealistic—approach of the hon. Member for Barking. Perhaps one might call it the whole hog approach. New clause 1 proposes that the hours qualifications would go entirely. Secondly, there is the realistic—or half hog—approach of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who seeks to reduce the present 16 hours and eight hours to 10 hours and five hours respectively. In both cases, one has to address the question whether that would increase employment opportunities and whether it would produce any significant advantages for those presently working full and part-time, whether male or female.
The hon. Member for Barking told us about the figures for women who are part-time workers. I appreciate that in a short speech some concepts are run together, but the assumption running through this debate, as in other similar debates, is that to be a part-time worker means that one has no employment rights because one works fewer than 16 hours a week. That is not correct. Many women are already covered by employment protection legislation. I will quote some figures from the spring 1988 labour force survey. In March 1988, 57 per cent. of women were covered by the main employment protection rights and a further 38 per cent. worked a sufficient number of hours per week to qualify for employment protection, once they had done the necessary qualifying service. Only 6 per cent. of women worked for fewer than eight hours a week and, on that basis, were ineligible for all employment rights.
The same point emerges in relation not only to women, but to part-time workers generally. The 16-hour threshold includes many who are working part-time. Figures from the labour force survey show that 57 per cent. of all those working part-time—that is, fewer than 30 hours a week—work for 16 hours or more and are, therefore, eligible for the main employment protection rights after two years' continuous service, in the same way as ordinary full-time employees. The assumption that part-time workers will be deprived for ever of the ability to have employment rights is remarkable and quite wrong.
The hon. Lady went on to make two further points, one of which encouraged me and the other of which discouraged me and confirmed me in my original opinions. It was encouraging that she made the point, fairly, that the Labour party was not against part-time work. Praise for the sinner that repenteth. It was good to hear that progress was being made. Many of the debates in Committee I have attended seem to have run on the basis that part-time work was always exploitive work, which people took merely because they could not obtain full-time work. The figures are against that. The hon. Lady has helpfully taken the debate further by saying that there is nothing wrong with part-time work per se. However, she then went on to say that many employers were deliberately engineering their employment operations to ensure that they had only part-time workers who could not qualify for employment rights.
5.15 pm
I must repeat one of the points I made a few moments ago. Many part-time workers qualify for full employment rights. The idea that any employer with sense or with any hope of being able to carry on a profitable business would be looking not for well motivated workers who would help his business and profits but would seek to employ people with no employment rights as the be-all and end-all of his employment system is bizarre. Although I hear what the hon. Lady says, I must point out that I have never seen evidence that employers are doing that on any meaningful level, although I agree that there is always an exception who can be quoted to justify a spurious rule.
The hon. Lady asked what had happened to the proposals contained in "Building Businesses … Not Barriers", which would reduce the hours still further. It would be a somewhat sterile debate to go too far down that road, except to say that we received a number of representations, which were often critical, about those proposals from those whom we hoped might benefit from them. The proposals are still there, but I need say no more than that. They were not included in the Employment Bill and that is the end of the matter. The hon. Lady asked for an assurance that the Government were not thinking of altering the law so that there would be some sort of qualifying period for race and sex discrimination cases. There is no question of that.
Surely we do not increase people's employment prospects by telling an employer, "The moment you employ this person—from week one, day one, hour one—he has got the full range of employment protection rights and can use those against you. You may even be taken at once to an industrial tribunal. You may succeed there, but you are vulnerable right away." The history of employment protection legislation is a question of balance—a phrase often used, but one that I must use again. On one hand, we have to ensure that those employees who have shown a commitment to their employers and to their work receive employment protection rights. On the other hand, we must ensure that those rights are not so instant and draconian that employment is positively discouraged. To suggest that that process would be advanced by giving people employment rights instantly is a dubious proposition.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, with his half-hog approach, felt that new clause 18 would have the effect of sweeping barriers away. I appreciate that only half of what I said to the hon. Lady is applicable to him. At least he has conceded—I am not sure how willingly—the principle that there should be some qualifying number of hours, but he also feels that the number of hours should be halved. It depends where one draws the line. I accept that the effects of new clause 18 would not be as deleterious as those of new clause 1, but they would go so far in a particular direction that they would be a force for ill rather than for good.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said that he could think of no good argument for resisting new clause 1. That was a remarkable statement. I can think of one argument that I could give to the right hon. Gentleman, although in itself it is not a good argument. That argument is that when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Employment all those years ago—in 1975—the Employment Protection Act introduced the hours thresholds that we are talking about now. In the past 10 years, the Government have shown themselves to be


willing to deal with legislation that was passed by Labour Governments. Those thresholds have not been attacked by us. We have been prepared to say that the thresholds that were introduced by a Labour Government—introduced by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent as Secretary of State—were appropriate then and are appropriate now. Citing the right hon. Gentleman as authority for anything would not usually convince my hon. Friends that we have got it about right. Of all hon. Members, the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the thresholds cannot say that there is no good argument in favour of them.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister said that there is a balance to be struck. He clearly thinks that the new clause does not get the balance right. He must surely recognise that, since the legislation was first introduced and put on the statute book by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), things have changed. More people are in part-time employment. With the labour force changing, we want to attract more people to part-time employment. Given the significant changes in the structure of the work force, how would a balance that was struck in 1975 still be appropriate in 1989?

Mr. Nicholls: That is probably a fair point. However, 1975 was so long ago that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has perhaps forgotten that he was responsible for the legislation. I do not agree that, merely with the effluxion of time and successful Government policies for reducing the rate of unemployment, the levels are now unacceptable.

Mr. Foot: As the Minister knows so much about the matter, perhaps he will tell us the exact number of women in part-time employment when the legislation was introduced.

Mr. Nicholls: I will not enter the debate on those terms. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no good argument and then attacked the proposals that he himself brought in. That requires some sort of explanation, but we did not get one. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made a better point. He said that perhaps we should consider the matter afresh and ask whether the hours are still acceptable. We believe that the balance must still be struck in this way.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister really cannot get away with that. The Government have a policy—[Interruption.] The Minister can hear all right. He used to hear all right upstairs in Committee. He must realise that the Government's policy is to create more and more part-time work. That is what they are about. Opposition Members are always squealing about full-time work. About 2 millon people cannot get a flipping job, and all that the Minister and the Government can do is to provide part-time work. Opposition Members are thinking about the future. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) talked about. Never mind 1975. We are talking about the future and the Government's policies on part-time work. The Minister should address that point. He completely ducked my right hon. Friend's intervention. Now come on, let's be knowing.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman's view of these matters is even more antique than that of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. The hon. Gentleman has been honest enough to attack the whole—

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.' might be 63, but I am not an antique, and I resent that type of remark from a young whippersnapper. He does not know what work is. He is a lawyer. I know what flipping work is, after 35 years in a pit, mate.

Mr. Nicholls: Perhaps it will help the hon. Gentleman if I reiterate that I was saying that his views are antique. I would never dream of taking that argument any further.
As always, the hon. Gentleman is honest enough to attack the whole concept of part-time work. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said that there is nothing wrong with part-time work. I remember a famous exchange in the last Parliament, when the hon. Gentleman derided the fact that, if Government policies went the way in which they were destined to, we might be turned into a nation of waiters. The hon. Gentleman will not accept the word "antique", but he will agree that he has a traditional view of these matters. Bluntly, we have not. We see nothing wrong with service industries, or the concept of part-time work.
When we consider employment protection legislation, we must ask whether it works towards getting people jobs or kills off jobs. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent compared the Government's record with those of Governments in the rest of Europe. He omitted to point out that unemployment in this country is falling faster than in any other major industrialised nation. At the same time, the majority of part-time workers can actually enjoy the full protection rights to which I referred a moment ago. That shows that we have got the balance about right. It is a matter of judgment where that line lies. We think that we have got it right. The rates were applicable in 1975, and, so far, no case has been made for saying that they are no longer applicable.

Mr. David Clelland: I am always interested to hear the Minister's response to these matters. He puts his arguments in such a way that he reveals the Government's real motive. He said that the Opposition's proposition would be tantamount to saying to an employer, "From day one, hour one, your employees can have full employment rights and can use them against you." That reveals a lot about the Government's attitude to employment rights. It certainly reveals the Minister's attitude to them. He apparently sees them not as rights to be bestowed upon employees to protect them against exploitation by employers, but as weapons to be used against employers, so, given the Government's favourable treatment of employers as opposed to employees, it is not surprising that they are keen to abolish employment rights. Hon. Members should be grateful to the Minister for at least clarifying the motives behind the legislation.

Ms. Richardson: I am pleased that the debate has suddenly livened up. Naturally, I am disappointed that the Minister should rubbish the serious point that part-time workers actually work. The assumption by some members of the Government and some parts of society seems to be that a part-time worker is a dilettante who does nothing—[Interruption.] I do not attribute that remark specifically to the Minister. Some people believe that


part-time workers should not have any rights until they have earned them or qualified for them and done a certain number of hours' work, in case they run away. If, for some reason or other, all part-time workers withdrew their labour, the country would fall to pieces.
I am not saying that we want more or less part-time work. I simply want the word "work" to be respected. People who do part-time work, whether they do it because they have other responsibilities and get no help from the Government to cope with those responsibilities—for example, at home—or whether they are able to do a full-time job, should feel that they are contributing something and getting some rights in return. That is all we are talking about. That is why, quite obviously, other European countries have become more enlightened than the United Kingdom.
I repeat that every country except the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom accords the same rights to part-time workers as it does to full-time workers. It does the Minister's case no good for him to rubbish our argument as pie in the sky that can never be achieved, when many other countries in Europe have achieved it. Their employers and Government institutions are coping with it.
If the Government are serious about their concern that in the 1990s there will be an increasing need, because of demographic changes, for employers to look at the possibilities of employing women workers, they must look seriously and thoughtfully at what part-time work really means. It is no good wishing that, come the 1990s, women will somehow be able to cope with all their other responsibilities and turn up for full-time employment. There will be an increasing number of part-time workers, and more and more women, as they become more confident and articulate, will demand the same rights as full-time workers, to which, indeed, they are entitled.
5.30 pm
I wish that the Government would wake up now, in 1989, to what will happen after 1990. They should think about the difficulties that they are now heaping upon the heads mainly of women by keeping these stupid restrictions. They should put this modest proposal into what is, generally speaking, their ragbag of an Employment Bill.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman wish the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Nicholls: If I may.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Patrick Nicholls.

Mr. Nicholls: I entirely accept what the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has said, that part-time work has a valuable contribution to make. However, I do not accept what ran through her concluding remarks. The assumption was that, in some way, part-time workers at present are a sort of sub-culture and have no employment rights at all. Some 57 per cent. of all part-time workers already qualify for full rights. The hon. Lady talked—which is understandable—specifically about women, but only 6 per cent. of women are not working for at least eight hours a week, and are therefore not gaining the necessary

hours to get themselves full-time rights in the end. Some 94 per cent. are working sufficient hours to get full employment rights in between two and five years.
We do not in any way devalue or deride part-time work. The proposition that must be dealt with is whether the job prospects of those who are currently in work, and those who would like to be, would be automatically enhanced by sweeping away any restrictions on the hours that must be worked. We do not believe for one moment that that case has been made out.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 248.

Division No. 204]
[5.32 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foulkes, George


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fyfe, Maria


Allen, Graham
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Gould, Bryan


Barron, Kevin
Graham, Thomas


Beckett, Margaret
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Blair, Tony
Haynes, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bradley, Keith
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hinchliffe, David


Buckley, George J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clelland, David
Ingram, Adam


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Harry
Johnston, Sir Russell


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles


Cousins, Jim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cryer, Bob
Kirkwood, Archy


Cummings, John
Leighton, Ron


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dobson, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Doran, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Douglas, Dick
McCartney, Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
McFall, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maclennan, Robert


Eadie, Alexander
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fatchett, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fearn, Ronald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Flannery, Martin
Maxton, John


Flynn, Paul
Meacher, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meale, Alan


Foster, Derek
Michael, Alun






Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Short, Clare


Morgan, Rhodri
Sillars, Jim


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Nellist, Dave
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


O'Brien, William
Snape, Peter


O'Neill, Martin
Soley, Clive


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Pendry, Tom
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L.
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack


Prescott, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Wallace, James


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Reid, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N.


Richardson, Jo
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Frank Cook and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Critchley, Julian


Allason, Rupert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amess, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amos, Alan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Benyon, W.
Favell, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fookes, Dame Janet


Body, Sir Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
French, Douglas


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gardiner, George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodlad, Alastair


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Gow, Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Hague, William


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Haselhurst, Alan


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cran, James
Hayward, Robert





Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Powell, William (Corby)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, Sir David


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Michael
Redwood, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irvine, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Irving, Charles
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Janman, Tim
Rost, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sims, Roger


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, David
Speller, Tony


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Latham, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stern, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stevens, Lewis


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Summerson, Hugo


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Thorne, Neil


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mans, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Maples, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Marlow, Tony
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tredinnick, David


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Trippier, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trotter, Neville


Mates, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Viggers, Peter


Mellor, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Miller, Sir Hal
Walden, George


Mills, Iain
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Miscampbell, Norman
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ward, John


Mitchell, Sir David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Monro, Sir Hector
Watts, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wells, Bowen


Moore, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Whitney, Ray


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Widdecombe, Ann


Mudd, David
Wilshire, David


Neale, Gerrard
Winterton, Nicholas


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholls, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Oppenheim, Phillip
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Paice, James



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. David Maclean and


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS

'.—(1) No young person under the age of eighteen shall be employed without competent adult supervision in the following industries—

(a) mining and quarrying,
(b) the manufacture of coke or smokeless fuel,
(c) construction,
(d) offshore oil and gas.

(2) The Secretary of State for Employment may by order specify industries in which young persons shall not be employed without competent adult supervision in addition to those specified in subsection (1) above.—[Mr. Strang.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 5—Statistics—
'The Secretary of State for Employment shall lay before the House of Commons each year statistics which shall show—

(a) the number of persons under eighteen in paid full-time employment,
(b) the average number of hours worked by persons under eighteen in such employment.
(c) the average wages paid to persons under eighteen,
(d) the number of industrial accidents involving persons under eighteen.'.

Amendment No. 40, in clause 8, page 6, line 39, after 'effect', insert
'except insofar as that would be inconsistent with Article 7(8) of the European Social Charter.'.

No. 41, in page 6, line 44, after 'age', insert
'except insofar as any such amendment would be inconsistent with the provisions of Article 7(8) of the European Social Charter.'.

No. 42, in page 7, line 16, after 'age', insert
provided that no provision made in any order under this subsection, shall be inconsistent with Article 7(8) of the European Social Charter.'.

Mr. Strang: The new clauses and the amendments have been tabled in response to the notorious clause 8 of the Bill, which repeals the law that seeks to protect young workers from exploitation by unscrupulous employers. In Committee it became clear that that clause was the most important of the Bill. Many of the regulations that protect young workers derive from the Factories Act 1961 and the Shops Act 1950.
The regulations have the effect of giving young workers protection which, in many circumstances, is desperately needed. The regulations limit the hours of work, provide for meal breaks and, of course, restrict night shift working. By young people we mean those who have left school, but have not yet reached their 18th birthday—in the main 16 and 17-year-olds. The 1985 labour force survey recorded that there were 887,000 such young people in the work force and that no less than 70 per cent. of them worked in areas where current legislation controlled their hours of work.
The origin of clause 8 was mooted in the Government's consultative document "Restrictions on Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in Legislation" In that document the Government spelt out their proposals for the removal of the controls on the

working conditions of young people. The first paragraph of the document refers to the legislation governing young workers and states:
It is unlikely that such a complex framework of legislation would be introduced today. This document therefore takes as its starting point that it is the maintenance, rather than the repeal, of restrictions on young people's employment that must be justified.
That is an illogical conclusion. The emphasis is on the complexity of the framework of legislation. Of course we recognise that the legislation is complex, indeed it has been built up over more than 100 years, but to say that, because the legislation is complex, the principle—that there must be some protection for young workers—is no longer acceptable is outrageous. It is a reflection of how extreme the Government are that such a clause could come before the House. It is not surprising that such opposition was expressed to the proposals about young people's hours of work, and so on, in the consultative document.
As we would expect, the Trades Union Congress made it clear that it was totally opposed to the proposals. It said:
The TUC considers that more research is urgently needed into the effects on young workers of extended hours of work, shiftworking and exposure to toxic substances. There is also an urgent need to examine the causes of accidents to young people at work in order to explain the increased risk of accidents that they face. Until this is done, existing legislation protecting young people from long hours, shift or nightwork and other hazards to health and safety, should remain in force.
The Confederation of British Industry recognised the need to maintain legislation. In its response to the consultative document, it said:
Many CBI members recognise however that young people could be obliged to work excessive and unsocial hours by unscrupulous employers. We would therefore accept some limitation on night work for young people and some general guidance on what are seen as reasonable working hours for them today.
I acknowledge that, in the main, the CBI supports the thrust and vast bulk of the Bill's proposals. However, it is significant that the CBI opposed the sweeping away of the controls.
Most startling of all is the fact that the Government have seen fit to ride roughshod over the response to the document of the Health and Safety Commission. It said:
that the restrictions may be unnecessarily detailed and elaborate, although not an apparent burden on industry, but that they should not be replaced without some form of control of young persons' hours of work in order to safeguard their welfare and opportunities for education, training, and social development.
It is a measure of how sweeping the proposals are and of the scale of opposition to them that the CBI, TUC and the Government's own Health and Safety Commission opposed such drastic legislative changes.
The Liberal amendments that we are taking with the new clause refer to the Council of Europe's European social charter, which was signed in 1961 and came into force in 1965. Article 7 states:
With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right of children and young persons to protection, the Contracting Parties undertake: to provide that persons under 18 years of age shall not be employed in night work with the exception of certain occupations provided for by national laws or regulations.
The Council of Europe's social charter is purely a statement of objectives. It is interesting that today the European Commission's social charter of workers' rights has been published. I have not studied the contents of that


charter, but it is important that if it is agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, as it undoubtedly will be, it will be binding.
I have no doubt that the basic principles in relation to workers' rights that are contained in that charter will mean a general advance in the conditions of this country's work force. It was predictable that in today's press conference by the Commission the British Government would be singled out as the only one opposing the idea of enacting basic rights for workers in relation to wages, conditions of work and—as contained in another European directive—health and safety.
The Government's proposals are totally out of line with the legislation that exists in most other European countries and they certainly move in the opposite direction from that which the European Commission and European Community will, no doubt, take in due course. That is a measure of how backward the Government are on workers' rights and the need to develop decent social standards and maintain conditions at the work place. The issue of health and safety at work is germane to this debate. In our view, there is no doubt that if the legislation is enacted it will jeopardise young people's conditions at work. That is why our new clauses specifically refer to that.
In Committee it seemed, remarkably, that Ministers were suggesting that a young worker was no more likely to be at risk than an older one. Frankly, that is nonsense. The idea that an inexperienced worker, a young person, is no more likely to be involved in an accident or to subject himself to hazards from toxic substances is patently indefensible. The statistics that we have point in that direction. I say that the statistics "point in that direction" because they are inadequate and we had considerable discussion on this matter in Committee.
The main information that we have about this comes from the Health and Safety Executive. Its 1984–85 statistics analysed in detail the correlation between the age groups of workers and accident rates. It would be inappropriate to consider the detailed figures here, as we did in Committee. It was quite clear that there is, of course, a correlation between the two, particularly in the figures for workers under the age of 26. Unfortunately, we did not have a detailed breakdown on workers aged 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. That should be available and that is why new clause 5 specifically asks for those statistics.
It asks for data about

(a) the number of persons under eighteen in paid full-time employment,
(b) the average number of hours worked by persons under eighteen in such employment,
(c) the average wages paid to persons under eighteen,
(d) the number of industrial accidents involving persons under eighteen.'.

We want even more comprehensive information than that. We want the figures for the different age groups.
If the Government proceed with the legislation, over a period there will be a risk that accident rates will be higher for young workers. That will not be obvious at the beginning. They will not be high, as they are now, with protective legislation in place, merely because the workers are young. They will be even higher because existing legislation will have been swept away. Young people will face other dangers as a consequence of the removal of restrictions.
New clause 3 deals specifically with health and safety. Some hon. Members may be slightly surprised to know that it specifies that
No young person under the age of eighteen shall be employed without competent adult supervision in the following industries".
It then lists four industrial groups, which are the most dangerous, but naturally we would expect the Secretary of State to add to these groups. Rather than placing a long list of industrial groups on the Amendment Paper, we merely list four because the clause goes on to state that
The Secretary of State for Employment may by order specify industries in which young persons shall not be employed without competent adult supervision".
The Government must face up to their responsibilities: there is no doubt that they will live to regret it otherwise.
Dangers in the work place are not the only aspect of the problem. Exemptions laid down by the Health and Safety Executive will be swept away by the Bill, along with the power to make such exemptions. That will mean that some young people will be alowed to work night shifts. Although there is a general assumption at present that they should not do so, in many instances the existing legislation permits it, and the Bill will place no controls on their exploitation.
6 pm
When young people work night shifts it is necessary to ensure that the terms and conditions of their employment are properly met: often, for instance, transport must be provided to take them home. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), speaking on the previous new clause, rightly focused on the special position of women workers. Many young workers, especially young women, will not have cars in which to drive home from night shifts—as a high proportion of older workers have—and that will make them particularly vulnerable. Last week Labour Members who met Edinburgh's chief constable were told of the large increase all over the country in reported cases of rape and other sexual assaults.
We are also worried about young people on youth training schemes. YTS accident rates are unacceptably high. Is there anything more tragic than a young person on a YTS being seriously injured or killed at work? Such tragic accidents are reported from time to time in the press. On Second Reading and in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) raised the case of Derek Cain, the Shefield boy who was killed by a paper baling machine within three weeks of starting work at a factory in the town.
I remind the House of that case not because of the substantial compensation that was eventually paid—after a long struggle—but because the authorities were liable. Effective action is needed to reduce the risk to young people on such schemes, particularly those working in potentially dangerous factories. We need proper supervision, and a reporting system to ensure that careers offices or other authorities involved inform the Health and Safety Executive and the factory inspectorate that YTS people will be employed in the work place.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: New clause 3 seems slightly defective. It picks out four industries in which it proposes that all jobs must be under adult supervision, and the hon. Gentleman implies that all those jobs are potentially hazardous. In the construction industry, for example, many young people may be employed in office work, which would not be regarded as hazardous in any


terms. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the inevitable consequence of putting in statutory terms a requirement for excess supervision over and above that required by normal safety considerations would be a reluctance by employers to recruit people for such office jobs?

Mr. Strang: We do not refer to "excess supervision". We should certainly not object if the hon. Gentleman persuaded the Minister to table a slightly adjusted form of the new clause including the phrase "appropriate supervision". Of course some jobs require considerably more supervision than others; that is not at issue. The new clause is intended to reduce the risk to young people in the work place, for we have no doubt that if clause 8 is passed unamended the opposite will result.
The new clause would also cover school children working in factories to gain work experience. I know that the Bill will not affect such people, but the new clause will enable us to establish a new and comprehensive framework. We do not argue with the Government's view that piecemeal legislation is unsatisfactory, and there is certainly a need for new legislation in this regard. What we oppose is the elimination of measures aimed specifically at protecting young workers.
The Bill is a further chapter in the saga of young people's exploitation for which the present Government have been responsible. Young people suffered the most from the horrific levels of unemployment at the beginning of the 1980s. A whole generation was affected, some of whom may have been lost for ever. They may never work as a consequence of the misery and deprivation brought about in their communities—communities in which the vast majority of young people, perhaps three quarters, had no job and no hope of obtaining one.
More recently, there was the disgraceful removal of young people's right to income support unless they joined a youth training scheme. Further legislation affected the wage councils, removing all statutory protection from the wages of workers under 21. As a result there is no statutory minimum that an employer must pay a young worker, and no limit to the possible exploitation. Now, shamefully, the Government are introducing a Bill that will remove legislation aimed at protecting standards relating to working hours, night shift working and, undoubtedly, health and safety.
The changes relate to the Government's so-called flexible labour market. Employers will be free to recruit workers—including young workers—on terms dictated by them rather than negotiated with trade unions, and, when it suits them, not to provide decent, secure, permanent jobs.
Hon. Members will say—and I agree—that the last thing that the vast majority of employers want to do is exploit young workers or put their health at risk. But there are enough unscrupulous employers who will, and the working of the market will cause them to bring pressure on others. By exploiting young people they will reduce an element of their costs, thus bringing about unfair competition and forcing other employers to lower their standards. That is why we need national legislation, and why, if we cannot have such legislation, we should support the European Commission's proposals for EEC legislation to require recalcitrant Governments such as this to legislate for basic standards in the work place.
By pressing ahead with clause 8 and refusing to accept the new clauses, the Government will go down a

dangerous road. They are gambling with the health and safety of our young workers, and in some instances it may be a matter of life and death. We appeal to the Government to draw back before it is too late.

Mr. Wallace: I support the new clause. I shall also speak to amendments Nos. 40 to 42 which are in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.
On Second Reading my hon. Friends and I tabled a reasoned amendment. It acknowledged that there were anomalies in youth employment legislation, some of which will quite readily withstand repeal. It was important that we did not seek a blanket repeal because there are some provisions in the legislation which protect young people. On Second Reading the Secretary of State gave some ludicrous examples of employment laws in relation to the working hours of young people. Never in a month of Sundays, although in that case we were talking about Saturdays, would such laws ever be operated in this day and age. I do not think that any hon. Member would object to some anachronisms being repealed. However, in doing so we must ensure that necessary protection is not lost. It is important to protect young people in terms of the number of hours that they work and in relation to their workplaces to which certain standards of health and safety should apply. Those standards should apply particularly to the needs and aptitudes of young people.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) quoted from the response by the CBI to the Government's initial proposals. The CBI is known for its general support of the Government, although it does not always wholeheartedly support them in the way that the Government would like. The CBI has been critical of some aspects of the proposals. It expressed concern that young people could be obliged to work excessive and unsocial hours by unscrupulous employers. Once reduced standards become commonplace, some of the best employers find themselves under pressure to go down roads which in the normal course of events they would not go down.
We have heard statistics in this debate and in others, including the debate which dealt with health and safety in the construction industry. They show that young and old people tend to be more susceptible to accidents after they have been working for a long time. When we combine young people and excessive hours the likelihood of accidents increases considerably. It is incumbent on us as legislators, as the people who make the rules, to ensure that protection is given to people who might otherwise, in the words of the CBI, find themselves exploited by unscrupulous employers.
Our amendments refer to the European social charter which is the product of the Council of Europe. Today the European Commission published a social charter, but before commenting on it one would have to look at its terms. I and my party believe that as we look forward to 1992 and beyond, it is important to recognise that the opportunities and benefits of 1992 should not be confined to business. They should be open to all people, employees as well as employers.
The Government suffer from Euro-paranoia. They think that anything that comes from Brussels and has anything to do with social justice must inevitably be wrong. That means that the Government will attempt to deny to our citizens rights that have applied for years in many other European countries without any obvious


damage to their economies. The Government's attitude is that everyone in the regiment is out of step except the Prime Minister. In the long term that attitude will damage Britain and in the short term it will damage the rights of young people. I shall have to look at the charter to see whether it refers to young people, but I am sure that it does.
6.15 pm
Some of the provisions of article 7 of the social charter are relevant to the debate but others are not. For example, it says:
To ensure the effective exercise of the rights of children and young persons to protection, the contracting parties undertake to provide that persons who are still subject to compulsory education shall not be employed in such work as would deprive them of the benefit of their education.
The Bill makes the school leaving age the cut-off point and it would not be appropriate to include the whole article. The charter also says:
a higher minimum age of admission to employment shall be fixed for prescribed occupations regarded as dangerous or unhealthy or where regular medical control is requred.
Those recommendations could have been incorporated in the Bill. In framing the amendment I highlighted article 7(8) of the charter which says:
To provide that persons under 18 years of age shall not be employed in night work with the exceptions of certain occupations provided for by national laws or regulations.
I did that for two reasons, the first being because of the inherent dangers of expecting children unnecessarily to work at night. Secondly, the Bill repeals section 1(3) of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920. If that is repealed it will mean the derogation of Britain from the European social charter.
In their blanket repeal of old legislation the Government have not thought through the protection that should remain on the statute book. It does not do the standing of our country any good to create or support an economy in which young children have to fill shelves in supermarkets at midnight or have to sell petrol all night. Our economy can thrive and prosper without such things happening.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has said, young people who work at night often have to find transport to get home at times when public transport may not be available. That applies especially in rural areas where public transport is difficult to find at the best of times. The hon. Gentleman spoke about attacks on young women and there is an increasing number of violent attacks on young males. Young women working at night will travel home in fear of rape, sexual assault or other forms of harassment.
In spite of the practices of the House, people are daytime creatures. We are not nocturnal and many adults who undertake night work or flexible shift work find it difficult. That is why they do not have to do it for long periods. Young, inexperienced people are likely to find the problem of coping with that somewhat more difficult than many older and more experienced workers who themselves at times experience stress because they have to work at night. No one compels young people to work at night, but economics can compel them to do so. That can have a disruptive effect on family life. We are told that family values should be encouraged. I support that, but it is

difficult to see how such values could survive alongside legislation which in the long term could oblige young people to work at night.
The Government could accept the new clause and the amendments without in any way thwarting the purpose of the legislation. We can still get rid of the anachronistic anomalies and the Bill, even with the new clause and amendments, will present more opportunities for employers to take on young people. In many respects we are asking for the bare minimum. The new clause asks for appropriate supervision and the amendments ask for some basic form of protection for young people who could be more readily exploited by unscrupulous employers.
We are not asking for much and I hope that the Government will seriously and sympathetically consider our requests. If they are not prepared to accept the new clause and the amendments because of technical deficiency, perhaps they will say that they accept the need for protection and have some measures in mind for another place.

Mr. Cope: It might assist the House if I intervene at this point, although, if points arise in the debate, I might seek to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the permission of the House.
I appreciate that the two new clauses and the set of amendments provide a handy peg for a debate on the subject. Certainly we are as concerned as anyone about the health and safety of young people. We have not done anything in the Bill to remove any protection for the health and safety of young people that was considered necessary by the Health and Safety Commission, as we have repeated throughout the proceedings on the Bill. At the same time we cannot support the proposals in the new clauses. I shall explain why.
On new clause 3, which was moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), we recognise that adequate supervision is important, particularly where young people are likely to be at risk because of their immaturity and inexperience. The same applies to inexperienced people of any age. In our view, there is sufficient protection, particularly from a supervisory point of view, in existing legislation, which is better and in many respects wider than the new clause would provide.
Section 2(2)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 requires every employer to provide, among other things,
such … supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees".
That means all his employees and not just young people.
The degree of supervision varies with the circumstances and with the individuals involved. Section 2 is framed in such a way as to allow for that. The new clause makes no distinction between the different jobs within an industry. It would apply, therefore, to a typist working for British Coal who would have to be under constant adult supervision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) indicated in his intervention, although I accept that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East offered at that point to change the new clause.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Minister explain to the House the difference between the new clause and relying on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, as


he is doing? Where a person was injured and made a claim for compensation, would not the defence under the Act dwell on the words
so far as is reasonably practicable
in that the employer could argue that it would be too costly to employ supervision and therefore he could not be held responsible? The new clause says that there shall be supervision and would make it easier for the ordinary worker to get compensation for serious injury.

Mr. Cope: Several points arise. There could be a claim for compensation under civil law. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act relates primarily to criminal law. The first court case would probably be for breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The nub of the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was the words:
so far as is reasonably practicable".
In practice I believe that the courts would find that there was an absolute duty in the light of what was sensible. Some cases demonstrate that.
Apart from that, it is important to draw attention to the fact that it is not just a matter of the employer saying, "It was not practicable, and that is that," or "It was too costly." It does not widen the provision much to include
so far as is reasonably practicable
but it ensures that the employer does not have to provide, as he might under the new clause, supervision in all cases, including the example of the typist in British Coal.
In addition to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act there is specific protection relating to particular industries. That includes, for example, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, which places a duty on a mine or quarry manager to ensure that nobody does any job unless that person has been adequately instructed, or trained if necessary, and is competent to do the job unsupervised. Again, that applies to all workers but obviously it is of particular relevance to young people working in mines and quarries, one of the industries specified in new clause 3.
Another example is the total ban on young people working on offshore installations. We do not propose any alteration in that. That goes further than new clause 3(1)(d). Young people under 18 are not allowed to work on offshore installations. Nor are we removing the many restrictions on young people operating dangerous machinery, driving locomotives or working with hazardous substances, such as lead. There are other restrictions which will not be affected by the legislation.
I appreciate that the industries listed in the new clause may be more dangerous, but where a particular hazard has been identified, legislation has been brought forward to cover it. The new clause provides for further industries to be added by order. That is unnecessary because there is already power to make regulations to improve health and safety under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The House will be aware that we frequently discuss additional regulations and orders that are brought forward under that Act. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will not think it necessary to press new clause 3 because supervision is already provided in legislation.
Similar arguments apply to new clause 5, which calls for new statistical returns. There are already several sources of information covering the statistics required, including the labour force survey, the new earnings survey and health and safety statistics from the Health and Safety Executive.

It is not always appropriate to put the statistics together because the figures are compiled at different times of the year.
We could set up a new survey to provide additional statistics but it would not cover any figures other than those required by the new clause. The cost to the taxpayer and to employers would be considerable and would not be justified in our view, apart from the imposition of further form-filling burdens on employers. As I have said, the various statistics are produced already.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke about amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 relating to the Council of Europe social charter. As has already been mentioned, that is not the same as the charter which is to be proposed by the European Commission for adoption within the European Community. I understand that there was a press conference in Brussels this morning, but the Commission has not issued a copy of the draft document on which it is working, so no one outside the Commission knows the details. From what has been said previously, we know the sort of things that are likely to be included in it. Health and safety regulations will no doubt be mentioned in the documentation but they are already covered by European directives and by the Single European Act. From time to time we discuss important directives that are brought forward under European legislation on health and safety.
From the health and safety point of view, the competence of the European Commission and its mechanisms is accepted. The charter to which the amendments refer is the Council of Europe charter which dates back to 1965. The argument is that article 7(8), the one referred to in the amendments, is no longer appropriate.
We believe that the control we have in respect of specific industries is best, and that a blanket ban on young people working in the night hours if they so wish is unjustified. We are committed to removing such unnecessary barriers to their employment. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East stressed at the end of his speech, it is important that young people have an opportunity to enter the employment market and take jobs if they so wish.

Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman re-examine the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill, which is a private Member's Bill that has the declared aim of removing British Rail staff from railway platforms? With people being encouraged to work at night, the removal of public service staff such as those of British Rail—whose trains will carry many millions of people to and from work at night and early in the morning—and employers exploiting the Bill's provisions, is there not a danger that the risk of attack and molestation will be even greater?

Mr. Cope: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in railways, and I am sure that he will raise that point when the Bill to which he refers comes before the House.
Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 draw attention to the fact that article 7(8) of the European social charter presents a problem, and therefore we intend notifying the Council of Europe of our intention to denounce article 7(8) at the next opportunity, which will be on 26 February 1990. Until we have denounced article 7(8) the ban on young people working at night and contained in section 1(3) of the Employment of Women, Young


Persons, and Children Act 1920 will be retained. That is why that legislation is dealt with separately, in schedule 7 to the Bill, rather than in clause 2 with the rest of the provisions concerning young people. Our intention is to repeal that provision when once we have denounced article 7(8). We take our obligations under the Council of Europe's social charter very seriously and in that way we shall not breach it.

Mr. Batiste: In the European Community's document No. 15, "Developments in the European Community, July-December 1988", that the House will debate tomorrow, it is stated in paragraph 8.4:
The Council reached a common position on the proposed framework directive on measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at the workplace. This is not the keystone for setting minimum standards for health and safety at work and is broadly consistent with the existing United Kingdom legislation in this area.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that our legislation meets the standards set in the general framework of European legislation?

Mr. Cope: Yes, we believe that it does. The House will have an opportunity to debate the framework directive in due course. Taking the Bill into account, our legislation fulfills and will fulfil the requirements of the framework directive—but that is another story, for another debate, for another occasion.
Overall, we yield to no one in our desire to see preserved the health and safety of young people at work and elsewhere. The Bill preserves all the health and safety provisions said to be necessary by the Health and Safety Commission, but, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, we have done away with some of the older parts of the legislation that are inappropriate to modern conditions. Neither the proposed new clauses nor the amendments are necessary to ensure the safety of young people.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I know how desperate young people can be to get a job. Young people in my constituency and in those of other right hon. and hon. Members will, because of the economic problems that they face, accept night shift. When I was a young apprentice, I was not allowed by law to work overtime until I was aged 18. Nevertheless, I worked overtime from the age of 15 because I knew that my mother needed the extra money that it produced. The same was true of many other young workers in that same factory. I did not start working shifts until I was aged 22 or 23.
The medical profession has not done enough in studying the effects of night shift working. Anyone who has worked night shift knows that it has an effect similar to that of jet lag on those who travel on transatlantic flights. People working night shifts suffer from high blood pressure. They are compelled to eat meals in the middle of the night, but their digestive system has a time clock that switches off so that the food in their stomach is undigested until the following morning, when they are asleep. As a result, they do not enjoy proper sleep. When young people in particular work night shifts, their concentration often suffers.
Young people aged 16 or 17 are supposed to give their young bodies every opportunity to develop, because at

that age they are still growing. The Bill will deprive young people of sunlight hours. They will go to bed when the sun is shining and go to work at night.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke about the dangers of travelling on public transport at night. The situation is not too bad when someone sets out to start their night shift at 9 o'clock in the evening, leaving to return home at 8 o'clock in the morning. However, a young person might be taken ill in the middle of the night. How will that boy or girl get home?
Has the Minister given any thought to the fact that industry currently works 10-hour shifts, so that workers can have their Fridays off? That is a good arrangement, but it means that young persons, even if they live in the same locality as their workplace, will have to allow themselves one hour to get to work and another hour to return home. They will be away from home for more than 12 hours, which is ridiculous in this day and age. It is tantamount to slavery.
Night shifts are also unpopular among adults, with foremen and general supervisors unwilling to work them. That will mean that, if a dose of the flu goes round a small factory, the usual supervisors will be absent and the young person may not be properly supervised. Two or three young people could be working dangerous machinery with no responsible person in the factory aged more than 21 or 22 to supervise them. The employer for the day shift may have made adequate arrangements, but then, because of absenteeism, a whole new set of circumstances might apply. The Minister should give this issue further thought.
I left school at 15. At school, just round the corner from where I lived, I had school dinners. When I began work I had to travel for an hour to get to my factory, and instead of school dinners I had to get used to cold sandwiches. I realise now that when I worked at night, my concentration at the end of the shift, at 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning, had become impaired. It must have been more dangerous for me to be using machinery in that tired state.
At my present age, I can recognise fatigue. As a youngster, I did not have that recognition. I fear that, by these provisions, the Government are putting youngsters at risk. I beg them to think again.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Minister said that the Government would yield to nobody in their concern for young people and their health and safety. Frankly, not only do I not believe that, but many hon. Members in all parts of the House, certainly on the Opposition Benches, do not believe it and working people in general do not believe it. The least he should do is accept new clauses 3 and 5.
I thought it ironic when the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke of the need for Britain to honour the social charter which the Government, by the inclusion of clause 8, will have to abrogate. I describe it as ironic because clauses 1 to 7 are concerned with protective legislation for women, and in that respect the Government are implementing a Council of Europe directive. The Minister seems to be suffering from a severe case of split personality.
It would be invidious to describe clause 8 as the main clause in the Bill. I feel equally fired up about the reduction in employee rights, the introduction of the £150 industrial tribunal deposit, the reduction in the degree of protective legislation for women and the reduction in the amount of


time off to enable trade union officials to perform their duties. Nevertheless, clause 8 is a key provision in the Bill, especially the effect it will have on young people.
Clause 8 seeks to abolish the present restrictions on the employment of young people. About 600,000 youngsters, or two thirds of school leavers, are at present covered by the Factories Act 1961 and the Shops Act 1950. The legislative cover, the umbrella provided by those measures will disappear if that clause remains unamended.
Young people will be eligible—I am not saying that they will queue up to take the opportunity—to work shifts, including nights, of 11 hours a day and over 54 hours a week, which they are prevented at present from doing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said, the only promise we got from the Tories when we debated this issue in Committee was that no young person would have to work more than 24 hours in any one day. The Bill represents an open-ended opportunity to exploit youngsters in their hours of work.
I asked in Committee for any Tory Member to raise a hand if he or she would allow a daughter aged 15 years and eight months to work under the conditions that would be permitted once the Bill became law. Not one of them took the opportunity to answer me. Of course not, because Conservative Members can buy their way out of this problem. Their bairns do not work at filling the shelves in Sainsbury's or the Co-op. They do not work in the bakeries or other similar industries. They can buy their children out of working long hours, whereas our children have no choice, apart from cheap labour YTS schemes and the inadequate levels of income support, if they get support at all. The alternative is to accept low-paid jobs, often in a part-time environment. Working-class youth will be especially hit unless we amend the Bill.
Clause 8 does not propose an adult wage for an adult job, even though we are talking about youngsters working the same hours as their adult counterparts. One can die for one's country at 16, pay the poll tax at 18 and be exploited as a school leaver—or even when at school—by rogue employers; but one cannot get a decent rate of pay until one is 21. That is when, according to the Government, one becomes an adult.
6.45 pm
I predict that, unless the Opposition new clauses are accepted, the trade most likely to take immediate advantage of this deregulation will be the bakery industry. It is already common in that industry to find night shift staff doing an average of 53 hours a week. I again extend my offer to Tory Members: which of them would allow their sons or daughters aged 15 years and eight months to work more than 53 hours on nights in a bakery? I pause, but not one of them on the Government Benches is prepared to take me up on that. Why should our youth, working-class youngsters, have to endure that?
In Committee—I have no doubt that the same will apply tonight—the Government's justification for the Bill was that such restrictions on young people's hours were a burden on business, unnecessary and out-dated and hard to justify on health and safety grounds; that there was no evidence that long hours, shift or night work had a different effect on young people than they had on adults; and that we should leave such matters to market forces. All those arguments were demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).
If the Minister is confident about the need for these provisions, why will he not accept, say, new clause 5? That would enable us to conduct an examination with proper statistics because the Secretary of State would have a statutory responsibility to collect such figures and publish them. If the Government refuse to take that step, people will draw the conclusion that the Minister has something to hide and that he does not believe in the arguments that he is using in favour of the Bill.
The Bill promotes the increasing exploitation of young workers. It sweeps aside the consequences of accidents, stress and strain, deteriorating health, safety conditions and declining wages. Unless we amend clause 8, it will repeal section 61 of the Factories Act and section 50 of the Shops Act. I feel it important—if only for the benefit of hon. Members who did not take part in our Committee deliberations—to point out just what will be repealed.
At present, youngsters aged 15 years and eight months, girls or boys, are prevented from working more than nine hours a day, or 48 hours a week, or more than 11 hours in any one day; are prevented from starting earlier than 7 o'clock in the morning and finishing later than 8 o'clock at night; and are prevented from finishing after 1 o'clock on Saturdays. Youngsters must have a 30-minute break after working four and a half hours and they must not work overtime above the maximum employment time of 12 hours, including breaks. That is all spelled out in the Factories Act 1961.
The Shops Act 1950 covers warehouses as well as shops. If any area of the service economy is growing, it is the warehouse sector. I have often made the point that the lack of investment in manufacturing industry means that, whereas we used to be known as the workshop of the world, we are rapidly becoming known, in view of the level of imports, as the warehouse of the world.
Under the Shops Act, a girl or boy aged 15 years and eight months must have a 20-minute break after three hours of work; may work a maximum of 48 hours in any one week; must have 11 consecutive rest hours in 24; and is not allowed to work between 10 o'clock at night and 6 o'clock the following morning. Every one those conditions will pass into the legislative dustbin of history if the Bill goes through unamended.
Tory Members are telling the working-class youth of Britain that all that protection is no longer needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn made the central point, which I reiterate, that it is an inevitable conclusion that longer hours, particularly outside the normal cycle of the body clock—working nights and shifts—weaken the constitution, so that accidents towards the closing hours of shifts become more prevalent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke about transport. Since deregulation of the buses in October 1986, in many urban areas fewer buses run in the evening, which makes things even more difficult for young people. What will happen if there is an incident such as that which happend in Central park in New York a few weeks ago, when a woman was raped by 40 animals? Say that happens to a young person here: what excuses will be given—lack of policing, she invited it? Will we turn the pages back and ask why a 16-year-old was working at 11 o'clock at night? Why was she walking down that street late at night? Will we put the blame where it lies—on legislation such as this?
We cannot deal with this legislation in isolation from the other things that the Government have done, such as


the abolition of the wages councils for the under-21s and the loss of income support for 16 to 18-year-olds not on YTS. I served on the Committees considering the Bills that brought about such changes. If clause 8 is not amended by our two new clauses 3 and 5, it will reinforce the trend that the Government have promoted of reducing the wages of young workers in comparison with adult workers. In the six years that I have been here I have often quoted—perhaps too often for Tory MPs—the words of Sir John Hoskyns, who invented the YTS. He wanted a scheme to increase the differential between youth and adult workers. There was nothing about a bridge from school to work or about high quality training. In April last year, average earnings for those under 18 were £88·40 a week, for the 18 to 20-year-olds £120·90, and for those over 21 £224·30. The gap is widening. In 1979, 18 to 20-year-olds earned 60 per cent. of the wages of those over 21. By last year, the rate was down to 54 per cent. Similarly, 16 to 17-year-olds in 1979 earned 42 per cent. of the adult wage; last year, it was 39 per cent.
Tories may argue that youngsters should not be paid too much because they are receiving training and they do not have experience. Sometimes, that is true, but the figures that I have quoted are of those in work, not of those in training. Since the Government introduced the two-year YTS scheme, most employers have used YTS as the basis for their retraining. A 16-year-old on the scheme gets an allowance of £29·50. If that allowance had kept pace with the rise in earnings since April 1978, when the youth opportunities scheme was introduced by the then Labour Government, those youngsters should be on £60·65. They are losing £35 a week because of the repetitive freezing of the YTS allowance. Those youngsters are not included in the figures that I quoted. The fall in pay is that for youngsters who are in work, not for those receiving training. Most get repetitive jobs for which they do not need much training.
As I have said before, one does not need much training to fill the shelves in Sainsbury's or the Co-op and increasingly, those youngsters are being used as substitutes for adult workers, often adult women workers. Sometimes the Government say, as they may do later, that their measures on the wages councils and the deregulation of hours and pay have had results, that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and one has only to look at the reduction in the number of unemployed youngsters. However, they do not examine how unemployment has shifted over the age spectrum and how older workers are put out of work because of substitutions.
The effects of clause 8 if it is unamended cannot be set apart from the effects of earlier legislation. Our new clause is an attempt to get some evidence about the effect of clause 8 if it is passed unamended. I have tried to get evidence on other changes, but the Government have been less than forthcoming. On 10 January, I asked about the supposed increase in job opportunities for 16 to I8-year-olds, including the abolition of the wages councils, but was told that there was no evidence. All that we had in Committee and on Second Reading was anecdotal evidence. Tory Members repeated stories that they had heard over dinner with somebody at the CBI or the Institute of Directors. Specific evidence is not available. That is the central reason why new clause 5 should be

passed. There must be a statutory responsibility on the Secretary of State to provide the evidence so that we can test what happens with this legislation.
I asked whether there had been an increase in jobs for youngsters following the abolition in 1985–86 of the wages councils for under-21s. We were told that this would result in 50,000 new jobs, just as we have been told that if, through this clause, we get rid of the inflexible restrictions on hours worked by young people, employers will queue up to employ them. I asked the Minister whether the Government would monitor the effects of the Bill, but he refused, and that is why we need new clause 5.
There has been a fall in the number of unemployed school leavers, but when we examine the figures—we have to do it because the Government will not—and put that fall alongside the rise in the number of places on the YTS schemes, we can see the direct correlation. In Coventry, the September-to-September figure for the 16 to 18-year-olds without permanent work was 5,540 in 1980, and 5,694 in 1988. The number of those wholly unemployed was 3,826, which went down to 2,604. For those on schemes, the number was 1,714, which went up to 3,090. In other words, if one counts YTS as being without permanent work, which is what it is, there has been no rise in the employment of young people because of the Government's deregulation measures. Clause 8 will also make no difference.
I could take the debate into many other sectors, having spent so much time on it in Committee and in other places. However, I shall concentrate now on health and safety. The background notes from the Department said about clause 8:
Ministers decided as a result of the review that there was a strong case for lifting the stringent restrictions on young people's hours and that other restrictions on their employment should also be examined to assess their continued relevance.
They also said that there were no safety objections to lifting the restrictions. Part of clause 8 gets rid of the need for employers to tell local careers officers when they take on school leavers straight from work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) mentioned the case which, on behalf of his father Richard, we have raised a number of times—that of Derek Cain, who was killed at the paper shredding plant of Plumb and Son, Sheffield in December 1982, when he was on a YOP scheme. That was a horrific murder. The Minister has had before him the transcript of the judge's decision of December last year, when he raised the original £52 of statutory compensation to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
We feel—this is why we have tabled these new clauses—that Derek Cain and the other 52 youngsters who have died on the YTS in the intervening period should have a memorial to them. Those deaths should jog the consciences of Tory Members of Parliament—if they have them—so that they make sure that these things never happen again. Unless this clause is amended, Derek and the other lads and lasses who have died on the scheme will be just another statistic in a long line of such accidents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn was absolutely right. If youngsters are not supervised, if they are tired after working long hours—there was no supervision of Derek Cain—and if careers officers are not told where these youngsters are working—the factories inspectorate did not know that Derek Cain was working at


Plumb and Son—there will be accidents. We have the evidence of what happens when there is no supervision and careers officers and other agencies are not involved, and when youngsters are working long hours. That is why we are pushing so hard to stop the Government passing legislation that could lead to further tragedies.
New clause 3 is the minimum provision that the House should accept. A while hack, I introduced a private Member's Bill. Under its provisions, no youngster would be allowed into any workplace unless they were members of a trade union. The trade union, as well as the Health and Safety Inspectorate, had the right to check safety and it would monitor such schemes. The Government have now removed all trade union involvement by abolishing the Training Commission, at the end of the Bill, and by removing the local veto that the trade unions had. They have taken us back to the days of the 19th century, when the Acts that we are amending with this Bill were first thought of—for example, that concerning the employment rights of children—and later became the Shops and Factories Acts.
The argument about what percentage of employers are good employers provoked debate in Committee. I was baited by Tory Members to give a percentage and said that it did not matter whether it is 50, 60, 70 or 80 per cent. They said, "Ah, Nellist is admitting that 80 per cent. of employers are good." We are not discussing how many employers are good employers but legislating to deal with the percentage of bad employers. My hon. Friends the Members for Springburn, for Bradford, South and for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) gave examples of youngsters being put at risk. However, if there is only one example of a rogue employer taking advantage of a youngster, new clause 3 and new clause 5 should be passed.
We had a lengthy debate in Committee, and tonight's debate may have been too long for some hon. Members, but anyone who, like me, has met families who have lost youngsters on YTS, anyone who has worked on a shop floor or factory and has had the protection of the Factories Act 1961, which provides what youngsters can or cannot do, or anyone who has seen the eyes and shaking hands of workers who have done a shift and a half or two shifts in an engineering factory or power station, both of which I have done, will not willingly allow this legislation to pass on to the statute book unamended. The House should pass new clause 3 and new clause 5 and, on Third Reading, chuck out the Bill entirely.

7 pm

Mr. Cryer: I want to make a few remarks about new clause 3 and new clause 5, which are both important.
It is clear that the Minister has no co-ordinated approach to the legislation. Earlier, I raised the British Rail (Penalty Fares) Bill, of which the Minister should have been aware, because clause 8 will remove restrictions on night work, which will he exploited by employers. If young people refuse work they will lose their unemployment benefit, which is another penalty that will lead to them taking night work. The Government have stitched up a deal with British Rail's management, who go home in chauffeur-driven limousines, to pass that Bill, which is inevitable because of the Tories' majority. Young men and women use trains to travel to work. If, on their journeys to stations, there are shadowy figures lurking in the road they may wish to seek help from a British Rail employee.
However, such help will not be available because British Rail will have substituted ticket barriers, whereby magnetised ticket strips are used to open gates. The sponsor of the Bill explained that that is what will happen. As my hon. Friends have made clear, because of Government legislation and the deregulation of transport, unprofitable in-fill bus services have disappeared. Night workers are being forced to do tasks by Government legislation, but the services necessary to make their jobs easier will not be available.
New clause 3 provides the requirement of supervision. It is unqualified because it says that there "shall be … supervision", not "so far as reasonably practicable." The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was consensus legislation passed by the minority Labour Government between February and October 1974. The qualification of "so far as reasonably practicable" was severely criticised by a number of hon. Members at that time. The Minister did not seem aware that when people are injured at work they seek compensation for the loss of a limb, loss of sight, loss of hearing or because an injury has caused them to lose their working capacity. The breach of an absolute provison makes it easier for them to obtain compensation in a civil court, which is where significant sums of compensation are obtained.
Why should not ordinary workers obtain adequate compensation in a civil court if pop stars can roll along to a civil court and obtain vast sums in a libel action against a newspaper? Today, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) mentioned the unfair way in which the libel laws act. However, there is a greater discrepancy between the way in which huge sums are handed out to the rich and famous, yet relatively small sums are paid to workers who lose their livelihoods or part of their body as a result of an industrial injury.
In judicial terms the words "so far as reasonably practicable", if it was not possible because of cost to have done something that would have prevented injury, can be invoked as a defence by an employer. Therefore, new clause 3, which provides for unqualified supervision, is an advance on relying on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
Section 1(1) of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969 states:
Every tip to which this Part of this Act applies shall be made and kept secure.
Why is that unqualified? Why do not the hallowed words used by employers and lawyers "so far as reasonably practicable" not appear? First, it was passed by a Labour Government that had a healthy majority, but there was a further factor. That Act followed the terrible tragedy in Aberfan, when a tip slid on to a school and overwhelmed and killed dozens of young children. Hon. Members said, "We will provide legislation that makes an absolute provision to ensure that tips are safe." I have always used that as a good guide. The tragedy received much news coverage and the nation rightly talked in hushed tones about it. The nation does not talk in hushed tones about the tragedies that occur day in and day out at workplaces because they are isolated examples. If those isolated examples are added together, they exceed the number of people killed at Aberfan. Why cannot we say that there should be unqualified supervision? New clause 3 places an obligation on adults, which is important, because they will have a responsibility.
I should like to mention briefly an incident which occurred not in my constituency but at Hantgantic quarry. Two young men who were just outside the age range that we are discussing were in a bucket on a quarry face. The bucket was suspended from a Scotch derrick crane. Over the years, adults had fallen into pretty easy ways. An adult had inspected the bearing caps holding the drum in place. An adult was authorised to inspect the crane, but did not know the difference between steel and cast iron. The Health and Safety Executive had sent around a note saying that bearing caps of cast iron should be replaced by steel bearing caps, but no one took any notice.
On that fatal morning when the two people were lowered to the base of the quarry to drill for the placing of explosives, the bearing caps broke and the receptacle holding them fell 200 ft to the quarry floor. Both were killed. When their fellow workers reached them, they were still moving and just able to speak—they were simply asking, "Why?" This is all in the record of the coroner's inquiry. It is a past accident, forgotten by the general population but remembered deeply by those whom it touched because of their close relationships with the workers.
It is not a bad thing to say to adults, "You have an additional responsibility. Young people are working here, so you must check. Notes sent by the Health and Safety Executive must be read and understood and the instructions carried out." Let no one think that Hantgantic quarry was run by a poverty-stricken family. It was run by a large multinational company which could more than have afforded to carry out the necessary work. New clause 3 is not, therefore, a bad idea.
New clause 5 places an obligation on the Secretary of State for Employment to provide statistics. He has passed legislation to remove the obligation to report accidents at work that cause three or more days loss of working time because of industrial injury. That reporting provided a handy source of information. I have asked for information and found that the statistics stopped in 1984. The Department does not have any more comparative statistics to publish.
What does this lack of information mean? The Department of Employment is no longer in possession of statistics which are automatically returned, so it cannot focus as a matter of routine and automatic estimation on employment areas with the most injuries and loss of hours. This is a serious matter. The automatic production of information meant that there was an important source of information and that remedial action was taken by the Department of Employment. The Department could say, "This substance is causing a loss of working hours."
The Government have poured out legislation to attack trade unions because, so they say, working hours are lost through strike action. The Minister knows, or should know, that in an average year more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action. The Government should introduce legislation to reduce the loss of hours and days and of life and limb through industrial injury. They should not be exercising their venomous obsession with attacks on the trade union movement.
The trade union movement takes a great interest in health and safety at work. The Transport and General

Workers Union and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union have taken an interest in the use of asbestos and the development of mesothelioma and other dangerous lung diseases. That work has been done, but not at the Government's behest. Those organisations are under vicious Government attack.
New clause 5 is very useful. It just asks for information. The House of Commons and the public at large have the right to have that information so that they can judge whether the Health and Safety Commission and Executive are recommending to the Minister regulations to reduce the number of injuries. That is a sensible proposition. The Government know full well that we no longer have the statistical information that was available a few years ago. The new clause is a step towards remedying that position.
I am sure that all but the most venomous and biased Governments would accept these modest proposals. I am sure that my hon. Friends will press for a vote. I have no doubt that we shall lose again because all the Tories who are not here, who do not give a fig about health and safety at work and use excuses about deterring employment to put off improved health and safety standards, will troop through the Division Lobby. The time is not far off when the next Labour Government will ensure that all these ills are properly remedied.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister expressed concern for the safety and wellbeing of young people, but it will take more than a pained expression to provide some defence for them. He is responsible for shepherding the Bill through the House. He shares ministerial responsibility for the Bill and has individual responsibility for what has happened.
Many disgraceful features in Standing Committee have been extended to the House. One of the worst of them has been reflected in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) about Tory Members trooping in and voting Labour down when they have not considered the arguments or been connected with the debate. At one stage in Committee, we observed that only three junior Ministers were left on the Government side, so a sufficient number of Opposition Members walked out to destroy the quorum. The fact that the quorum could be destroyed on that measure out of all those in the Bill tells us something about Conservative Members generally and certainly about Conservative Members of the Committee.
We attempted first in Committee to remove the major elements from the clause—the restraints that were to be placed on working hours and the provisions to eliminate protection for workers. We were roundly defeated. On no occasion did Conservative Members vote with us in Committee. On one occasion, one Conservative Member abstained in the vote on a motion that he had tabled because Labour Members supported it. On no occasion was there a response to our arguments and appeals.
We were pushed back. We attempted to prevent the Government from having the power through the Secretary of State to repeal certain regulations, but we were solidly defeated. We tried to get consultation with the TUC on the operation of the measures, and our amendments were defeated. We then introduced a measure, which has been discussed today, which dealt with whether young people would be deemed to be unavailable for work if they refused


to take a job with excessive hours, bad shifts and other limitations. That measure was solidly defeated. As a final stopgap, we tried to hold up the operation of the Bill for 12 months, but we were soundly defeated.
Perhaps the Government know not what they do. They often represent forces that are not associated with the working lives and conditions of people on the shop floor, so they act out of ignorance. In the London docks strike of 1888, when there were marches through the west end, attitudes about the strike changed because people suddenly saw the poor conditions and standards under which people lived in the east end. This caused a culture shock which had an impact on the political system.
It may be that, as with much of the legislation that the Government put before us, this measure is a result of ignorance. The Government need to associate themselves with the condition of ordinary people. We might expect them not to understand issues such as women in the pits, time off for trade union education or redundancy provisions, but I find it hard to appreciate that the Government cannot put themselves in the position of young people. Even Conservative Members—hard though it may be to believe—have once been young people themselves. Some have children who are young adults and who go through the various problems of life. Were all Conservative Members whizz-kids who never had difficulties in making their way in the world, who never found problems of exploitation and who never had fears in the period in which they needed to adjust to some of the disciplines of life in industry and commerce?
The removal of restraints, which will allow extra overtime working and night working, remove meal breaks and introduce the possibility of Sunday working without time off in lieu, will produce tremendous burdens for young people. Decent parents tend to want to encourage their children to study and to acquire skills, but they also want to encourage them to enjoy life and to adapt themselves to adulthood. Many parents, especially those from working-class backgrounds, look on the years from 16 to 18 as the halcyon days of their own life, when the pressures were not so great and there were things to do apart from working all the time. There is an interest in members of the opposite sex and in entertainment. Should not young people have the opportunity to enjoy that, or are we trying to place them in circumstances where we allow the removal of prohibitions because of the strange notion that, as a result of a decline in the birth rate, young people will be in a fantastic negotiating position in the future in which they can negotiate individually for decent wages and conditions? Those negotiations might have some impact if young people were allowed to be properly organised and mobilised, but there would still be other pressures, which my hon. Friends have mentioned.
The Opposition are trying to put back into the Bill some protections, especially in relation to supervision by adults. Why is such a provision supposed to be hideous? I cannot imagine. Supervision is a benefit to the adults themselves as well and to work generally, so one would have thought that it would appeal to Conservative Members. But they have an ideological commitment to there being no restraints at all on industry and they believe that market forces should determine wellbeing, however harsh those market forces may be.
New clause 5 relates mainly to statistics. That is an area which contains an element of change for the future because the statistics that we seek will often be the statistics of

doom. The statistics that we seek will reflect the conditions and average hours of young people, their wages and, if the market forces theory is to be believed, the decent standards that young people will enjoy. The statistics will also show the number of industrial accidents suffered by young people under the age of 18, as well as the number of people in full-time employment. That basic information would seem to be required if there is to be change in the future and if people's perceptions are to altered.
If there is even a little truth in what we have said in Committee and in this debate, should not the Government at least respond to new clause 5? They could at least say that, although they were right, they would give us a chance to find out the relevant information. But this Government are not interested in providing information. They manipulate information, as they have done with the unemployment statistics. They spend millions of pounds on misinformation, on artwork and other productions to push their ideas down people's throats. But they will not give us the basic material to help us work out ideas for ourselves and perhaps to change matters in the future. I ask the Government to think again and to give us one provision in the Bill that would mean that we could build a decent world for tomorrow—if not immediately—out of this legislation.

Mr. Foot: To give the Minister some credit, he showed a certain diffidence in putting his arguments to the House. Perhaps I am being too generous, but he seemed to have some doubts about his proposition, especially in his reply on new clause 5. I would have thought that the Government should be only to eager to accept new clause 5. I am sure that they must understand that health and safety is a developing area, which changes constantly. Health and safety is being affected by new and different industries, which is why we introduced the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which was a general measure that also improved specific areas. Everyone interested in health and safety foresaw that there were huge new developments in different industries, such as the chemical industry, which would require a far more comprehensive means of dealing with health and safety than anything achieved under the old Factories Acts. That was the basis on which we established the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, with their associated legislation.
The Minister claimed earlier that all the recommendations and advice on this subject he had received from the Health and Safety Commission had been incorporated in Government action. I am not sure that that is so, but of it is, it is only a sign that we must carry the work much further still. If that is the Government's claim, they must also acknowledge that the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive say to the Government every month of every year—whenever they have the opportunity—that to do their job properly in a changing world, where many people will be threatened with new kinds of illness in new kinds of industry, they need many more inspectors, more provision, far more analysis and far more detailed evidence.
I am sure that the Health and Safety Commission would be only too eager for new clause 5 to be accepted because it deals with information. The Government should also provide more funds to ensure that the Health and Safety Commission has an expanding role in our society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that the 1974 Act was a consensus measure which did not achieve everything that we wanted, and that is true, although it was a good measure none the less. We would, of course, have liked to carry it much further. However, under the Act, the 5 million people, including many young people, in various industries who had never been covered by health and safety provisions were covered for the first time. That process had to be supported over a long period by a Government who understood that they faced a new problem. That is why we introduced a series of measures so that trade unions could have improved health and safety provision. There also had to be provision for trade union representation in health and safety matters. Instead of a Bill such as this, which undermines some of the measures that existed in the past and detracts from previous factory provisions, we should have an up-to-date measure to take greater account of health and safety provisions.
7.30 pm
I give one striking example of what happened when we introduced the measure, just to prove how different the attitude was in those days. We tried to introduce health and safety provision to cover not only young people but agriculture. We did not have a majority in the House at the time. Lo and behold, the House of Lords threw out the part that stated that health and safety provisions should apply to agriculture. Almost as many peers rallied to that great cause as defeated the poll tax. They were present in great numbers to defeat the simple proposition that health and safety provisions should apply to agriculture. The facts prove that the provisions in respect of agriculture should have been greatly enlarged, because dangers in that industry were constantly increasing. Fortunately, when we got a majority, we were able to put that right. Nobody since—not even anybody in the House of Lords—has been foolish enough to say that such a provision should be knocked out. I hope that the Government will not re-examine the measure to see whether they should curtail it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) deserves great credit for the way in which he put his case in the House and throughout the country. Anybody who has heard him speak knows that the Government have not answered his case. Opposition Members must answer it when we have the power to do the job properly.
The Secretary of State has got himself into a hopeless tangle about the Council of Europe's provision. The Government have already decided that they will abrogate it. The right hon. Gentleman said, "We will not be guilty of disobeying the law, but, as soon as we can, we will do away with the provision that makes us responsible under the Council of Europe operation." Has it occurred to the Government that, just when they abolish that provision by the legal methods that they use, they may face a new clause dealing with similar matters from Europe dealing with social matters?
It is much better for the dignity of the country that hon. Members adopt safety measures for protecting common human decency. Why do we not do that? Instead, the Government will be dragged screaming into the 1990s on a range of social issues, including the simple issue of how

we are to protect young people at work from risking their lives and safety. It is shocking that, instead of proceeding fast to a new health and safety provision, the Government are retreating. They will not even accept the new clause. There have been five or six wretched employment Bills over as many years. I renew the appeal that I have made to the Government many times. They have had 10 years or more since the introduction of the health and safety legislation and the establishment of the Health and Safety Commission. There has been huge development. The Government should go to the commission and say, "How can we make your work much more effective over the coming 10 years?" They will discover that it costs money. They can consult the people who really know.
Many of the commission's inspectors are dedicated men and women who worked in the old factory inspectorate which was incorporated into the Health and Safety Commission. It is one of the jobs in which people apply their dedication to a great cause. Many splendid people work in the commission. They could give plenty of advice to the Government, if only the Government would use one tenth of the eagerness and hard work that they put into squalid measures for undermining trade union rights and do something about health and safety. I ask the Government to introduce a major health and safety measure in the next Session. If they do not, a new Labour Government will do so as soon as they possibly can.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I do not hold out any hope that the Minister will change his mind and accept the worthwhile new clauses. Clause 8 and the removal of protective legislation for young people go right to the heart of the Government's obsession with flexible work. They are seeking to create a reserve army of young malleable workers who will ask no questions and be prepared to put their lives at risk. Sadly, if our proposals are not accepted, we will run behind the more advanced economies in western Europe. We are to have a new charter. As my right hon. Friend said, the Government may be dragged screaming and kicking and forced to behave like a modern, civilised western democracy.
New clause 3 is eminently sensible. I examined some of last year's statistics on the construction industry. The number of reported major accidents is rising faster than ever. Last year, 157 building workers—36 of them in London alone—were killed on site. The number of fatal and major accidents is up by two thirds on the 1981 figures. It is vital for the Minister to reconsider his attitude to new clause 3 and at least to accept this small measure of protection so that young people will be supervised by a competent adult.
It is no secret that young people are adventurous, have energy and want to explore workplaces. Some of them are mischievous—that is part of being young—and therefore it is even more important to protect them. The citizens advice bureau in Chesterfield conducted a survey on what is happening to young people in the workplace. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is right. Young people are already exposed to dangers, in spite of the protective legislation that the Government are seeking to remove. Young people often lack confidence and often give in to authority when they are told to do something. Adults often think, "That is not right," and challenge authority.
The citizens advice bureau survey in Chesterfield showed that young people are often selected to do the most dangerous jobs or work the most dangerous machinery, and that enforcing health and safety rights can be problematical. Employees querying health and safety at their work place are often victimised and dismissed in this free enterprise economy where two or three workers chase every job.
The survey gave examples of incidents involving young people. A building worker, aged 17, was working in extremely dangerous conditions, often at great heights, without adequate supervision, and on very low pay, too. The survey states that the eyes of a young man of 17 were damaged by a welding flash. That young man was sacked when he questioned safety at work with his employers. In another case, a water pipe burst near a machine operator, aged 20. The water mixed with the glue and oil from the machine, but nothing was done despite protests to the management to clean up what was obviously an unsafe situation. The machine operator slipped and damaged her back. The survey gave example after example of incidents involving young people. All those events occurred despite the fact that every employer has a duty reasonably to care for the safety of staff.
At present, young people have certain protections. The Minister should ensure—if not on the ground of conscience, out of a sense of honour to our country—that we do not get dragged screaming and kicking by EEC directives into doing something civilised to protect young people. We should not remove that small measure of protection.
New clause 5 is a reasonable request to keep information. The Government have masses of resources to hand. In any modern civilised state such information would be automatically kept. Why will the Government not keep statistics of the number of young people under 18 years of age who are in paid employment, the average number of hours worked by persons under 18 in such employment, and their average wages? We could all hazard a guess as to why they will not tell us about the average wages. I shall be talking about low pay in a later clause. It is vital that we know the number of industrial accidents involving young people under 18.
I urge the Minister to reconsider and to accept the two new clauses. If he feels that he cannot do that, at least, when we come to Third Reading, he could kick out clause 8.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I apologise to the House for not having been present at the beginning of the debate. I was in the Select Committee on Social Services, which was considering the health White Paper, cross-examining people who were anxious to give evidence to show the damage that will be done by the Government. I am pleased to have arrived in the Chamber in good time to hear a substantial amount of the debate and to participate in it.
I want to refer to a simple matter that affects young people. There has been a change in definition of the term "young person" for the purposes of employment law. No great play has been made of it, but a change of definition has just been tucked into the Bill. The change is that, whereas at present a young person is someone aged 16 but under 18, when the Bill becomes an Act the young person will be of school leaving age and under 18. To the casual eye, that may appear to be the same thing. We are accustomed to talking about the school leaving age being

16 years. However, that is a gross simplification. A school leaver can be 15 years eight months through to 16 years seven months, according entirely to his or her birthday. That change in definition will bring into the net youngsters from the age of 15 years eight months, and will remove a considerable amount of employment protection.
7.45 pm
In Committee, I asked Ministers the simple question how many of the young people concerned would be under 16, and they could not produce an answer. For three separate Committee days the Ministers could not produce an answer. In the Bill there was a change of definition bringing in a large number of extra very young people, but the Ministers did not even know how many would be involved. I should have thought that it would be simple for a Minister to discuss the matter with his opposite number at the Department of Education and Science. That should have been done before any idea of a change in definition was considered.
Anyway, three Committee days came and passed, and during that time I obtained, by the normal procedure of a parliamentary question, an answer from the Department of Education and Science. So I, from the Opposition Benches, told the Ministers how many 15-year-olds they were bringing into the legislation and stripping of even more employment protection. I told them that every year more than 100,000 young people under the age of 16 leave school. I am not sure whether the Minister wants to intervene. No, he has changed his mind. Perhaps he still does not realise the number involved and it will take time for that to be absorbed. That change of definition is a mere casual afterthought, just tucked away in the Bill, but 100,000 under 16-year-olds will be brought into its ambit and will have even more employment protection taken away.
Of course, at present those young people are protected as children. Therefore, we were taunted about the fact that we wanted to keep those youngsters as children, whereas the Government wanted to give them the extra status of treating them more as adults. That would be a point of view that they could argue were it not for the fact that for the purpose of social security legislation a young person under 16 does not even exist in his or her own right. Therefore, we have the astonishing fact that, if a girl is 15 years eight months and is unfortunate or misguided enough to be having a baby, she does not exist in her own right and cannot claim social security for herself or her baby. She is regarded as a child, completely dependent on her parents. However, under this Employment Bill, the Government will have a girl of 15 years eight months working down a pit. When I was 15 and working, I was anxious that people should regard me as an adult, but I know that I would have deeply resented being regarded as a child when it came to Government pay-outs and as an adult when it came to exploitation, which is exactly what will happen to young people under the proposed legislation.
I ask the House to bear in mind that, under the clauses which talk about young people under 18, we are perforce considering some young people who are even under 16. The fact that we are asking for accident statistics makes the clauses even more relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) stressed that young people cannot be regarded as having old heads on their young shoulders, when it comes to


taking care in dealing with machinery and hazardous work or in dealing with employers who may be pushing them to do things that they should not do. Young people may feel in great need of protection, but the Government will remove it.
Ministers are a bit careless about figures. This morning in Committee I was told that only a small number of women would be affected by a particular matter that we were discussing. I asked how many, but, once again, Ministers did not know. I think it is absolutely scandalous that Ministers do not know how many people are affected by their legislation.
In Standing Committee we were told that not all young people are eligible for employment protection in the first place. We were told that only those working in mines, quarries, shops and factories were protected. I accept that, but I would have thought that a responsible Government would have then decided to protect those not currently protected. The Government, however, prefer to give the impression, once again, that, what has been done is of no great consequence. However, they are stripping protection from 73 per cent. of young people, quite apart from changing the definition of young people to include some 15-year-olds.
If I were to complain to the House, I would complain that the new clauses are too modest. I assume that it was thought that it was worthwhile to be modest in the hope that, some day, we shall get some response from the Government, but I believe that we have erred in our modesty.
In new clause 5 we ask for the
average number of hours worked by persons under eighteen
in paid full-time employment. I believe that we should go further. Once the Bill becomes an Act I would like to know the range of hours worked. After all, the Bill will remove from young people the protection of not being allowed to work more than 48 hours—sometimes 54—in a week.
Will the Bill affect the number of hours worked? The Government have been engaged in a peculiar process. In Committee they told us repeatedly that the Bill would provide more employment opportunities for young people. Since the only mechanism to achieve that result would be to let young people work longer and in worse conditions, we naturally asked what sort of employer would offer extra jobs to youngsters for more than 48 hours a week. However, Ministers said that employers would not offer such jobs. We were even told that young people would be like gold dust and that it would not be possible to push them around. If that is so, why do the Government need clause 8? If young people will be able to offer their labour in a seller's market, why strip away their protection? Why take away that protection if its removal will not create any extra jobs as employers will be too good-hearted to say to a young person, "You can have a job, but only if you are willing to work 50 or 60 hours a week"?
The Government cannot have it both ways, but they try. The burden of their argument appears to be that more jobs will be created because conditions will be worsened and that therefore there will be more chances for exploitation, but when challenged on that the Government say that employers will not exploit young people. Such a response treats this House with contempt. But that is a small matter compared with the effects of the Bill on young

people. Therefore, I want to know the range of hours that will be worked by young people under the age of 18, after the Act has had a chance to bite.
I am anxious to know the number of industrial accidents that have been suffered and those figures should be properly sorted out. When I have tried to get figures on accidents, the common answer is that separate figures are not kept for whatever category I seek information on. I want to ensure that separate figures are kept and that those figures are specifically drawn to the attention of the House so that they can be debated. When we have complained about the number of accidents on YTS, the answer from the Government is that those figures are no worse than those suffered in the employment market generally. All that means is that there are far too many accidents happening to young people in work whether it is full time paid employment—a proper job—or YTS or any other kind of manipulation.
I believe that the new clauses are extremely modest and I shall be disappointed, but not surprised, if they are not accepted.

Mr. Cope: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
For the most part this debate has been a re-run of the arguments against clause 8 made in Committee. Those who were members of that Committee have run the course before, but the new clauses are specific.
New clause 5 refers to the collection of statistics, but it does not require a great many statistics to be collected. Many are collected already and are made available to the House through the Employment Gazette and publications from the Health and Safety Executive. I do not believe that collecting even more statistics, as suggested in the new clause, would help matters.
A recent analysis by the Health and Safety Executive suggests that young people at work are less at risk than the average employee. The reverse was true in 1984–85—those statistics were quoted in the debate—but in 1986–87 the fatal or major accident rate for 16 to 19-year-old employees was 81·7 per 100,000 employees, compared with 88·7 for all employees. I do not, however, believe that the bald statistics tell the whole story. For that we must rely on the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission. We must also look to the factories inspectorate—the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) paid proper tribute to it, with which I agree.
On 11 April I made an announcement about health and safety on YTS, which included a new and additional study of the statistics on YTS accidents that flowed from the consideration that I promised the House following the judgment in the Cain case, which was also referred to today.
New clause 3 would be more effective if it did not merely repeat existing provisions in our legislation. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and other hon. Members referred to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the right hon. Gentleman have every right to be proud of the fact that you carried that Act through the House. It forms a good basis for health and safety legislation today. Therefore, I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that we should introduce an additional new framework. I do not believe that that is required. One of the good things about the 1974 Act is that it enables us to bring orders to the House to increase health and safety in individual areas


as industry develops and conditions change. We frequently introduce such orders and the framework directive, referred to earlier, is such an example.
It is also important to point out that the Health and Safety Commission, which supervises that Act and the executive, involves the trade unions. It is not only the commissioners who are involved, but many of the specialist committees. I hope that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent is not suggesting that we should replace that machinery by new machinery. We should build on it by bringing additional orders before the House as we see fit.

Mr. Foot: I am not suggesting we should introduce new machinery. I am suggesting that, after 14 or 15 years of the Health and Safety Commission, instead of the niggling measures damaging safety rights which the Government bring forward in different Acts, it is time to look at the machinery. We should see whether substantially bigger sums should be provided so that the inspectorate could be expanded. I bet that if the Minister were to ask the Health and Safety Commission what it thought of that proposition, it would think that it was a good one.

8 pm

Mr. Cope: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying what he said. We have granted the Health and Safety Commission the extra funds it has asked for this year, and the number of inspectors is increasing. At least we are moving slightly in the right direction.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister accept that we take, not with a pinch but with a ton of salt, his plaudits about the machinery of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? I share the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) about the "as far as is reasonably practicable" point. The Minister's plaudits about the machinery are less than convincing if the operators are not there to put that machinery into operation. Despite the Minister's announcement about the increased numbers of health and safety inspectors, between 1980 and 1988 the numbers fell by 129, which is a 29 per cent. drop.

Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to make his point.

Mr. Nellist: Answer.

Mr. Cope: We have had a re-run of the debate that we had on the basic clauses in the Bill. Several hon. Members have indicated that their real target is clause 8. I did not expect to be able to convince Opposition Members on that matter this evening, but I would like to think that they would now be less convinced of the advantages of these new clauses, which I urge the House to resist.

Mr. Strang: The Minister is right that our main concern is clause 8 and the purpose of the new clauses was to focus attention on what the Government were doing. I rest my case quite simply on the Health and Safety Commission's comment because the Minister has repeatedly referred to the commission and has spoken at length about the valuable work that it carries out. We agree with that.
I remind the Minister that, in response to the Government's own consultative document in which they

put forward the proposals for the elimination of the restrictions on the employment of young people, the Health and Safety Commission stated
that the restrictions may be unnecessarily detailed and elaborate, although not an apparent burden on industry, but that they should not be replaced without some form of control of young persons' hours of work in order to safeguard their welfare and opportunities for education, training and social development".
The Government have not taken that advice. They are sweeping away the controls on young people's hours of work. For that and other reasons advanced by my hon. Friends this evening we shall vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 244.

Division No. 205]
[8.02 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fearn, Ronald


Adams,Allen (Paisley N)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Anderson, Donald
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Flynn, Paul


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Battle, John
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Beckett, Margaret
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bermingham, Gerald
Gordon, Mildred


Bidwell, Sydney
Gould, Bryan


Blair, Tony
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hardy, Peter


Buckley, George J.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Caborn, Richard
Haynes, Frank


Callaghan, Jim
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hinchliffe, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cartwright, John
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clay, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Geraint


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cummings, John
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Darling, Alistair
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Doran, Frank
Livsey, Richard


Douglas, Dick
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie


Eadie, Alexander
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McNamara, Kevin


Fatchett, Derek
McWilliam, John


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max






Mahon, Mrs Alice
Rooker, Jeff


Marek, Dr John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rowlands, Ted


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Ruddock, Joan


Maxton, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Meacher, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Michael, Alun
Short, Clare


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Straw, Jack


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Joan


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wareing, Robert N.


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pike, Peter L.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Redmond, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Richardson, Jo



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, George
Mr. Frank Cook and


Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Allen McKay.


Rogers, Allan



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Allason, Rupert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Durant, Tony


Ashby, David
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Favell, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Dame Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forth, Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
French, Douglas


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Budgen, Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Chapman, Sydney
Grist, Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grylls, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Colvin, Michael
Hague, William


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hanley, Jeremy





Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Paice, James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Harris, David
Pawsey, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Price, Sir David


Heddle, John
Raffan, Keith


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Redwood, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Riddick, Graham


Hind, Kenneth
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Sir Peter
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howard, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rost, Peter


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Ryder, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sackville, Hon Tom


Irvine, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Irving, Charles
Scott, Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Janman, Tim
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shelton, Sir William


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Sims, Roger


Kilfedder, James
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Speller, Tony


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knapman, Roger
Squire, Robin


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knowles, Michael
Stern, Michael


Knox, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sumberg, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Summerson, Hugo


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lilley, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lord, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


McCrindle, Robert
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thome, Neil


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Madel, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malins, Humfrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mans, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Maples, John
Trippier, David


Marlow, Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Viggers, Peter


Mates, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Maude, Hon Francis
Walden, George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Miller, Sir Hal
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain
Ward, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Mitchell, Sir David
Wells, Bowen


Monro, Sir Hector
Wheeler, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Whitney, Ray


Morrison, Sir Charles
Widdecombe, Ann


Mudd, David
Wilshire, David


Neale, Gerrard
Wolfson, Mark


Nelson, Anthony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Yeo, Tim


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)



Norris, Steve
Tellers for the Noes:


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Mr. David Maclean, and


Oppenheim. Phillip
Mr. Alan Howarth.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9

HEALTH AND SAFETY OF HOME WORKERS

'There shall be established a home-working unit within the Health and Safety Executive. In each division of the Health and Safety Executive an inspector will be designated to concentrate on the inspection of home workers' health and safety.—[Mrs. Mahon.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mrs. Mahon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
At present, home workers are effectively excluded from the protection of health and safety legislation. The Factories Act 1961 places a duty on firms in specified trades to notify local authorities about home workers for health and safety purposes, but the Health and Safety Commission noted in 1979 that that had more or less fallen into abeyance. Hackney was the first local authority to employ a home worker officer. Only 68 home workers were found to be registered, but it was estimated that 10 per cent. of all clothing production was carried out by home workers.
The 1981 Select Committee report on home working made a few recommendations, but the few that it made have been largely ignored. There is therefore a need to make firms register home workers and provide information about all materials, machinery and equipment used by them. The register should be available for inspection by trade unions and, of course, by the health and safety inspectorate, and the inspectorate should be given powers to prohibit the use of dangerous equipment and hazardous materials which are quite often used in the home.
If the new clause is accepted—I am fairly hopeful that the Minister will accept it—the Government should clearly provide adequate inspection and enforcement arrangements by increasing the number of inspectors substantially and providing the necessary back-up facilities. Home working is a long-standing example of casualised labour: there is no effective regulation of the suppliers, and the worker has no security, no rights and relatively poor pay. High unemployment, industrial restructuring and the withdrawal and weakening of regulatory mechanisms, such as the proposed abolition of the wages councils, form the background against which an increase in home working is predicted. Some people predict a substantial increase in both the numbers and the range of work covered.
As for the number of home workers, the figures vary considerably. Professor Peter Townsend estimated in 1968–69 that there were over 1 million and the 1981 Government census recorded 750,000. The general guesstimate is that there are now over 1 million, and it is largely accepted that most of them are women. They do a vast range of jobs, and the conditions under which they work can be intolerable—hence the need for the new clause. Some of those conditions would not be allowed in any factory, office or school. Many women are working in dangerous conditions, and the hazards are numerous.
The noise nuisance for people working with machinery is quite common. There is exposure to various chemicals and solvents and, obviously, there is the risk of fire from

trying to do at home a job that should be done in the workplace. There is also the question of machinery and electrical safety.
Often, because of the long hours and the intricacy of the work, especially in knitting and sewing, there is a great deal of eye strain and headaches. There is also the problem of dirt and I shall look at that in detail when I outline the case of a home worker who uses electrical equipment. The nature of home work and the reason many women do it means that they work in small houses, in flats or even in bedsits. The work is often carried out while small children are in the room that has to be used. That is totally unacceptable. Home workers have to pay for their own heating and lighting and often for the electricity that is used to run welding equipment, computers, sewing machines or knitting machines.
Packing calls for masses of materials which have to be stored in passageways, living rooms and even kitchens. I visited some home workers in Halifax and could hardly get through the door: the small terraced house was piled to the ceiling with boxes ready to be packed. A variety of items such as Christmas crackers, Christas cards and mail order catalogues are packed. Last year, The Observer carried the report of a sad case in Southwark in which a two-year-old child died while his mother was putting catalogues into envelopes. That shows the dangers that exist for women who work at home and try to look after young children at the same time.
As I have said, some home workers are exposed to hazardous substances. Some hon, Members will have heard about the widely reported case of a woman who was sticking felt on to piano keys and using benzine. She was doing it in a confined and poorly ventilated room and contracted leukaemia. The most vulnerable group of workers, those who are likely to have young children with them while they work, sometimes quite unknowingly expose themselves to great danger. The new clause would go some way towards providing for the inspection and examination of the workplace and the kind of work that women are doing.
Women carry out such work because it is the only sort of work they can do. If they are not caring for children, home workers are often found caring for elderly or disabled relatives. Because of the need to get work completed on time, children often help mother to carry it out. In the article in The Observer last June, one home worker said:
My daughters aged 13 and 14 used to come in from school, eat, and start sewing. I could never have got enough money from the work if my children had not helped. We were absolutely desperate for money as my husband had left. I challenge anybody to check, sew and lay a dozen sweaters at the rate they set and earn more than 66p an hour.
That seems to be fairly common practice among home workers.
The new clause deals with health and safety, but the other matters that I have mentioned are relevant. At present, there are no health and safety checks, and there is little training. I understand that many people think that home working is a minor matter in terms of unemployment. Some people have an image of home workers as a few women working for pin money. That image has been challenged by many factual accounts of women in financial need having to work long hours for appalling wages because they have no other choice. Sheila Allen and Carol Wolkowitz carried out a study into home working and published a book last year. That gave the


results of intensive research into home working, especially in the west riding of Yorkshire where I come from, and revealed the realities of the situation.
In west Yorkshire, Louise Crew, a researcher at Leeds university, studied in detail the large textile and clothing companies in the area. She and Sheila Allen and Carol Wolkowitz discovered that, while home workers largely earn a pittance, they are part of big business. For example, one west Yorkshire company uses 1,200 hand knitters, and a Huddersfield firm says that its home workers contribute £3·5 million to the company's annual turnover. That is big business. The managing director of that Huddersfield company says that his firm chooses to put work out because of the advantages of flexibility, cheapness and a reduced need for space. All that firm's outworkers are women and 95 per cent. of them are from ethnic minorities who may not be well equipped to organise or to find their way around health and safety legislation in order to improve conditions
When firms such as those that I have mentioned put out work, they also put out their health and safety problems. They no longer have any concern for the conditions in which the women work. They can take on workers when they need them and drop them when work is slack. They have no obligations about job security or regular incomes for the workers. This is a big and expanding business.
In the Government's deregulated Britain, it is tempting for employers to move into the home work area. However, in many cases the work is degrading. I have raised in the House the case of the women in my constituency who were packing Christmas cards for 24p an hour. Those cards eventually found their way to the shelves in Woolworths. When Woolworths' managing director, Mair Barnsworth, was contacted she seemed unable to see anything wrong with that. She thought that, if the women worked twice as hard, they could earn as much as 48p an hour. It is a different story when the chief executive of Kingfisher, which owns Woolworths, awards himself a 50 per cent. pay rise of £701,000 a year. He earns £14,000 a week, which works out at about £350 an hour. That is in sharp contrast to the Halifax women, who earn 24p an hour. He does not work in dangerous and unpleasant conditions with boxes of cards filling his living room.
A packer in Halifax has started a group to try to highlight some of the hazards that home workers face. I found her account of her experience quite moving and I should like to read some of it. Bernie has now given up outwork and is organising other workers. She says:
When I did outwork, I used to make Christmas crackers. All in all it took roughly three minutes to make one. They consisted of six to a box and I was paid one penny per cracker. I earned roughly 40p per hour.
A normal rate of pay for packing work, which tends to be the lowest paid home work, is 40p to 50p an hour. I realise that considerably more is paid for some home work. She continued:
I also made gift tags, which consisted of six tags, three green, three red, one red ribbon and one green ribbon. I folded them all, put them in bags and was given 1p per bag. There was many a time I used to stay up all night so as to get my wage packet at the end of the week, for buying shoes, clothes and sometimes food, for my children. Many people thought I did this for leisure money. But this was not the case. I did this to buy things which were a necessity. I could not go out to work, because I have small children, so I got them to bring work to me. I used to put in 90 hours a week. There

would be boxes stacked everywhere—little toys, paper hats and mottoes all over the room. The paper was so dazzling that my eyes used to hurt and then would come the headaches, followed by migraine. I would get terrible backache. But I could not stop for fear of losing some of my wages.
That was the experience of one home worker with whom I had contact earlier this year.
8.30 pm
Home workers are susceptible to pressures which create worse conditions for them. Their very low rates of pay and the fact that they are on piecework mean that they have to drive themselves to work, often for long hours. Sometimes they cut corners on health, safety and welfare.
Knitting, which is a common form of home work, is not dangerous in itself, but when a heavily pregnant woman sits up all night to finish work, it becomes hazardous. Another experience was outlined to me by the woman herself who did the work in order to survive because she was on inadequate benefit. She was paid £5 to knit a very intricate mohair sweater which is sold in London boutiques for about £90. Because she was trying to pay off bills, she had to sit up all night to finish garments. That in itself was hazardous. I have many more first-hand examples from constituents, all of them women, who have to work for more hours than is good for them and their families.
With home workers we get the other side of the Government's flexible work force. Often home workers have no employment rights and are vulnerable. I shall give another example of better-paid home work in my constituency. The work was supplied by FKI Cableform, whose parent company is FKI Babcock plc. FKI Cableform gave out electronic assembly work. The rate of pay was 31p a piece for assembling the work in the person's home. That was cut to 18·9p per piece. My constituent was already working 40 to 60 hours a week. She could earn £75 to £80 for working very long hours. If she accepts the new arbitrary arrangements whereby the piece rate is almost halved, she will have to work nearly double the hours to maintain the same income. That could be detrimental not just to her but to her family because she has family responsibilities, as do the other women who work for that firm.
The building society will not cut her mortgage in half, quite the contrary with interest rates as they are. The cost of cornflakes and other foods will not be halved overnight, but if she wants to maintain her income she will have to put herself at risk by working nearly double the hours that she worked before. Such exploitation should be dealt with. An inspectorate would examine the obvious hazards. It would also take into account the welfare of the worker and would examine conditions in the workplace, in this case the home.
I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. The Trades Union Congress has been concerned for some time about home work. It has put forward many suggestions to the Government and to various bodies interested in the health and safety of home workers. In a charter it has given advice to local authorities, to the Health and Safety Commission and to the Government. It wants provisions on the statute book that would treat home workers as employees and put a duty on those giving out home work to make six-monthly returns to local authorities giving details of where the work is placed and information on the type of work and the materials and equipment involved. It has also sugggested that the


information should be available to trade unions. It wants an inspectorate with powers to prohibit dangerous equipment and hazardous materials which present risks that could not be controlled in the home. It makes other useful suggestions.
I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the new clause and will see his way to implementing it. I recommend the new clause to the House.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know perhaps that a document, called the social charter, has been prepared by the European Commission and produced today. I understand that it is available to the Economic and Social Committee of the European Community. I have made inquiries in the Library because the document is directly relevant to the provisions of the Bill and to the new clause. It deals, amongst other things, with pay, hours, insurance, union membership and so forth. Many people believe that it is ultra vires of the treaty, particularly title III as amended by the Single European Act.
I want to take the opportunity to ask if we can make a protest on behalf of the House at the manner in which the House has been bypassed and ignored by the production of the charter without it even having been made available, as I understand it, to the Government, let alone to Parliament. I make that as a point of order that is directly relevant to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I understand his concern. No doubt the Minister has listened to what has been said. He may find it relevant to comment on it when he intervenes, as he doubtless will, in the course of the debate.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I endorse fully the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) who summarised some of the points that I intended to make. The debate is timely in view of the fact that only this afternoon the Select Committee on Employment has been interviewing three young women who came to give evidence about part-time work and home work.
Home workers are usually women with young children, and they often use fast-moving machinery. To increase production and make more money they sometimes remove safety guards so the machinery then represents a hazard to their children. They also use adhesives and other solvents, yet they are not aware of their toxic content. That is another example of a hazard that confronts them. Those women are exploited, are paid very little, and have no form of redress or defence. Nobody speaks up for them, no organisation represents them, and no legislation protects them.
The House may be interested to know that today three young women gave evidence before the Employment Select Committee for two hours. They made frank comments rather than attempting to present sophisticated statistics. They spoke honestly from their own experience and knowledge.
The Committee was given a document from the Diocesan Board for Social Responsibility, an organisation within the Manchester diocese. It is so concerned about and appalled by the conditions reported to it that it is up in arms and is disgusted with the situation. The exploitation of home workers is not confined to any

particular city but can be found in Birmingham, Coventry, Manchester, Yorkshire, Halifax, and many other areas. Plenty of information can be produced about the wicked exploitation of people who are among the most disadvantaged. They may include the disabled who are unable to compete in the ordinary employment market and seriously handicapped in the limbs. Such disabled people may be able to use only their hands or fingers, yet they are desperate to make a little money. Also disadvantaged is the young mother of three or four children who cannot afford a babysitter. She cannot find employment in the competitive world and is stuck at home, desperate for money. Some employers are very conscious of such situations and exploit them.
The social responsibility document presented to the Committee gives a number of examples of the sheer greed of some employers. One example concerned hand knitting and designer wear, where a home worker in west Yorkshire was paid £4·50 for one week's work. It may be hard to believe, but that person was paid £4·50 for a hand-made sweater. That is the level of reward that is offered. It was found that home workers' rates of pay are on average 30 per cent. less than the normal remuneration for similar work. But such workers do not enjoy paid holidays, maternity rights, or sickness pay.
8.45 pm
Home workers are also sometimes expected to use their own equipment, such as sewing machines, as well as providing electricity, heating and lighting. Despite that, the ladies who gave evidence to the Committee this afternoon said that in some cases no increases have been paid for three of four years. That means that in real terms home workers are paid less than they were four years ago, and that their income is not even keeping pace with inflation.
The Committee asked the ladies if they could name some of the employers involved. Everybody imagines that such exploitation is only perpetrated by the owners of small factories or companies of 15 to 20 workers who are just trying to top up their labour force, but that is not the case. Big businesses also are involved. The Committee was given the names of Marks and Spencer, Woolworth, C and A, and British Home Stores. They are all involved in exploitation and pay women home workers only a Few pence, when, year after year, they go swanking on the stock exchange and talk about the millions of pounds they have made. Any idea that such exploitation is restricted to small organisations trying to top up their labour force must be dispelled.
The Committee was also given examples of tax fiddles. One witness knew of a case in which an applicant was asked, "Will you submit two different names—one for the morning, and one for the afternoon?" That was done because of the tax fiddles that the company wished to enjoy.
Any fair-minded person will agree that it is time to clean up the home worker sector. That can only be done in this Chamber, because home workers labour in isolation, are not represented by any organisation, and have no one to speak up for them. If we really have a conscience, we can do something for them. We are putting the Minister to the test. He must either make a good case for ignoring our request—and I know that he cannot—or he must listen sympathetically and with compassion.
There is certainly a case for a minimum wage for home workers. I know that Ministers and Conservative Members are against a minimum wage, as are organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry. The CBI is worried about some of the consequences of 1992. It says, "We defer to the Government." Meanwhile, Conservative Members say, "Remember, we must be competitive." If we must pay poverty wages of the type I have described to remain competitive, how is it possible for countries such as France, Sweden and Germany to have minimum wages yet to have inflation rates half of ours, no financial crises and no balance of trade problems? The argument that to be competitive we must continue to pay poverty wages does not hold water and everybody recognises it as a complete sham.
When the Committee was taking evidence this afternoon, a young woman was asked what would happen if, though she received poverty wages, her employers did not offer her a job. Would she earn even less, was the implication of the question. My view is that companies paying those sorts of wages would have a hard time finding others to do the work for what they are paying, let alone finding people to do it more cheaply. Do Conservative Members really believe that if jobs were taken from poverty workers such as those, masses of people would be willing to work for 20p or 30p an hour?
The Committee was told of a lady making dresses who was receiving 90p per dress for her work. She happened to notice that the same dresses were being sold in the shops for £30. A Conservative Member asked the lady, "Did you see those dresses for sale up-market, the sort of dresses you were making? After all", he said, "they were selling for only £30." His statement almost took the breath away from those women, who said that they could never afford to buy a dress for £30, whether the shop selling them was up-market or down-market.
I hope I have explained how some hon. Members are totally out of touch with reality and do not understand poverty or the suffering of the people about whom I am speaking. There is an overwhelming case for the introduction of a minimum wage and for protection in health and safety matters. We need a form of registration so that we can sort out some of the villains who are carrying on business in such a shady way, exploiting hard-working folk, particularly women.

Mr. Batiste: The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is to be congratulated on moving a new clause which gives us an opportunity to explore, in more detail than time normally allows, an interesting and increasing area of activity in the United Kingdom—home working.
I believe that we shall find, as further statistics become available to add to those that were available from the early part of the 1980s, that this has become a growing and increasingly attractive area of activity. So before we look in detail at the Opposition proposal, we must consider whether the negative view of home working which we have heard from the hon. Members for Halifax and for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) is justified on the evidence that is available.
The hon. Member for Blackley referred to three women who gave evidence to the Select Committee this afternoon. One could find any group of three people in any area of

activity who could present, honestly and fairly, a view of just about any industry and activity that would make people's hair stand on end. One must ask whether the evidence that was given by those three women was typical of the home working group of employees as a whole and whether it leads us to the conclusion, contained in the new clause, that a special unit of the Health and Safety Executive should be set up.
The best evidence that I have discovered is the 1981 special survey as supplemented by subsequent studies and brought together in the work of Catherine Hakim in an article which was published in 1987 in the Employment Gazette. I make no apologies for drawing heavily for statistics on that article, though I would happily look at any reasoned and comprehensive set of statistics that Opposition Members wished to adduce.
Before one considers what solutions one needs to perceived problems, it is important to examine whether those problems exist in the form in which they have been expressed and whether they are typical of an industry at large. The first question to ask in relation to the new clause is what is a home worker? Traditionally, that has caused much difficulty of definition, because it covers potentially a wide range of groups of people.
The hon. Member for Halifax must address her remarks more carefully to the specific group of employees she has in mind because I can see great difficulties in trying to impose the full jurisdiction of the Health and Safety Executive on large numbers of people who, on any reasonable definition of the term "home worker", are self-employed and would deeply resent such an imposition.
What are the general categories of people who are included? Clearly, large numbers of self-employed who work from home come within this category. One could perhaps exclude those who are self-employed, and deal only with those who are in employment. But that would probably not help the hon. Member for Halifax because the definitions of employment related to control by employers would probably exclude a large number of the people at whom she would be addressing her new clause. There is a difficult borderline to be borne in mind there.
Perhaps one could limit the group to those who took work from only one supplier, but again there would still be a large number of people who were self-employed without having any employer of their own with any responsibility for the machinery or safety standards in their homes. Another category, for example, would be the areas of child minding, in which many people are engaged at home.
An increasing number of employees in this home-working category are information technology workers, and as the pace of technology advances a large number of jobs that were hitherto done in offices are often now done at home through computerised systems linked together through the telephone network. Again, one must ask whether they should be brought within the categories covered by the new clause. Another large group of people are in sales and haulage. There are many other examples. I hope that I have explained that a wide category of people come within the definition of home workers.

Mr. Eastham: The hon. Gentleman seems to imply that there could not be blanket protection to embrace all home workers. He surely does not believe that in, say, an engineering factory, all manner of different provisions are needed for the various categories of people who work in the factory, whether they are in the wages department,


operating a centre lathe or pushing a brush. It seems strange that it should be possible to find an umbrella of protective legislation to cover everyone in such a factory, yet the hon. Gentleman implies that the same sort of provision could not be made for all people working at home.

Mr. Batiste: The hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions about what I am going to say later. What I am saying at the moment is that, unlike him, I am trying to ascertain the facts as best I can and reach conclusions about dealing with the problems that relate to those facts. He will be aware that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 imposes certain burdens on employers and statutory duties to ensure health and safety at work. Difficult questions have to be answered if a large proportion of the people in the group that he and the hon. Member for Halifax wish to be covered by the Act are not employees technically. I am trying to point out that one has first to analyse the group that one wants to protect and see whether the protection that one is seeking to invoke would be relevant to that group of people.
The few examples that I have given already show that, far from being confined to a narrow group of people in limited working circumstances, home working is carried out in a wide range of different industries and activities, is growing in scope and can broadly be divided into two groups of people—those who work at home and those who work from home.
An interesting finding of the 1981 survey, which quite contradicts several of the points made by the hon. Members for Halifax and for Blackley, is that of those who work at home, 71 per cent. are women—that confirms what the hon. Member for Halifax said—but of those who work from home, an equal proportion—71 per cent.—are men. I do not know what significance that has one way or another in the context of health and safety at work, but as the hon. Lady said that we should find what a typical home worker is, I felt it important to put the record straight.
The 1981 survey looked at a number of particular features of a typical home worker. First, it looked at whether the typical home worker is someone who is either chronically ill or disabled. The hon. Members for Halifax and Blackley suggested that, typically, this was the situation. However, the survey shows the opposite—that there is no departure from the norm in the pattern of health of home workers as compared with industry at large.
9 pm
The survey goes on to say that a high proportion of those who are home workers are owner-occupiers—something like four fifths—and that a strong element of motivation of those who work from home is the need to get income to help with the costs of home ownership and home buying given the expansion of home ownership. Interestingly, it says that, taking the group as a whole, home workers are better educated than the work force in general. This is a different picture from the one painted thus far.
When one goes on further to see what industries are involved in home working, the picture broadens out extensively from that so far given. The tables in the 1981 survey show that some 229,000 people were employed working at home—the group in which the largest proportion is women—while some 658,000 people were

employed as home-based workers—the group with a proportion of 71 per cent. men. An enormous range of industries is covered. Some 50,000 people in the professional-related industries are working at home, and another 40,000 are home-based. As one would expect, large numbers of clerical workers—100,000—are home-based, some 25,000 are in catering and a considerable number are in farming. In processing, making and repairing—the manufacturing side—some 42,000 people work at home and some 47,000 are based at home. Those are just a few examples, which show that, rather than being confined to a manufacturing base, home workers cover a much wider range of industrial and commercial activity than has been suggested so far.
The hours of work and the tenure of work are also quite different from what has been suggested so far. The tenure of work is shorter than for those who are employed full time in the work place, and the hours that each person works are much less. As the survey shows, working at home is the result of choice because one of the often-quoted advantages of home working is the sense of freedom and independence that it gives. The survey found this in an extensive number of interviews of those working at home.
As to earnings, typically they were low on average and they reflected part-time wage rates. The survey does not present any tables of wage rates, but it includes an important point. The survey did not deal with wage rates but stated that if the relatively short working hours of home workers are compared with those who work longer hours there is bound to be a discrepancy. But wage rates are irrelevant to this debate. We are debating not low pay but health and safety and the Health and Safety Executive. The issue of a national minimum wage touches on debates that we have had in Committee and in the House on many occasions, in which, naturally, differences between hon. Members have been apparent.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a heavily pregnant woman having to sit up all night to complete a sweater for which she will be paid only £4·50 could have some effect on her health and that of her unborn child?

Mr. Batiste: Any pregnant woman who works too hard in any environment could put her health and that of her child at risk, but one would expect her to show a measure of responsibility in her work. Typically, hours worked at home are shorter than those worked at a fixed work place. Therefore, the home worker works in a much more relaxed environment, being able to work shorter hours in her own home rather than having to travel to a workplace. I do not think that the hon. Lady's point bears too much examination.
The survey considered how much control was exercised by employers, what work was done in the home and for how many hours. While there was quality control for manufacturing, consultancy or clerical work, little other control was exercised. As the new clause aims to enable health and safety inspectors to inspect work done at home, one would expect clearer evidence of widespread employer involvement, but fewer than half home workers qualified as employees.
Accidents are of more relevance to the new clause. What were the survey's results about accidents to home workers? The survey said:
The annual rate is very low indeed.


The impression has been given that the majority of home workers are disabled people or people suffering from a chronic illness that might predispose them to having accidents without supervision, but that is a false picture of the typical home worker. The home is a relatively dangerous environment, and many accidents happen each year as a result of circumstances at home rather than work done at home. I shall give way to any Opposition Member who can give statistical evidence showing that working at home is not safer than working in a factory.

Mr. Eastham: The hon. Gentleman challenges Opposition Members to give evidence of safety. I remind him that there are insufficient inspectors to visit homes or factories. There are already 129 fewer inspectors than there should be, and we are told that each factory receives one visit every seven years.

Mrs. Mahon: Every 12 years.

Mr. Eastham: I thought that it was seven years. Given its diminished staff, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Health and Safety Executive can catalogue all hazards and accidents? Who is he trying to kid?

Mr. Batiste: I think that the hon. Gentleman was saying that he has no evidence to present against the evidence in the report from which I have quoted and which he can get from the Library. It suggests that the rate of accidents among home workers is low. That report is based on a substantial test of home workers. It is important in debates such as this to get the best available evidence. I have quoted my sources, and the hon. Members for Blackley and for Halifax are welcome to check them.
The report revealed the positive attitude of home workers to home working. Freedom and flexibility were their hallmarks and home workers expressed great satisfaction at that. Dissatisfaction at home working was low and there was a low level of union membership.
Given the typical profile of the home worker, I see no case for giving statutory rights to factory inspectors to walk into people's homes.

Mr. George Howarth: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) tried deliberately to confuse the House or whether he was confused. He made a misleading comparison involving the large population who work from home. He tried to compare the population in general, including accountants and journalists, with the group of workers whom my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) wants to protect through the new clause.
I concede that many people who are technically based at home, including those who do accountancy and insurance work, probably do not need the protection of the new clause. It was clear from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that that was not its target. The hon. Gentleman made out that, because we have not produced statistics to prove that health and safety inspectors should have a unit to cover at-home work and statistics to demonstrate that people are dying or are seriously injured because of health and safety problems in their homes, our case is not proved. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax nor my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) made that case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau

Gwent (Mr. Foot) was responsible in the 1970s for putting health and safety legislation on the statute book. All other workers in industry and commerce have that protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax wants to extend it to those who work from home.
I should like to make it plain to the hon. Member for Elmet, if he needs it brought home to him, that we are talking about people who work from home because of economic necessity. There is no great freedom in running a sewing machine in one of the bedrooms or the living room. People do this work not because they find it intellectually stimulating but because they are skint and the only way they can pay the mortgage or the rent or feed their family properly is by bringing in extra income.
Various groups work from home. We are concerned about the garment industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley said, Marks and Spencer and other companies sub-contract the work on their lines of fashion through an agent, perhaps to a putative manufacturer, who sub-contracts the work to someone in the home. It is usually called cut, make and trim. The manufacturer may cut and finally trim the garment, but the making up is done in the home, often for a pitifully small price per garment. The point about the difference between what the home workers receive and the price the garments fetch in the high street has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax.
9.15 pm
It may appear that some great value is being added in the process if the home worker is receiving £5 for a garment that costs £90 when it is on the rack at Harrods. In reality, Harrods may be doing nicely, but four or five people are in the chain between the retail outlet and the home worker. That is where the money is going. The home worker receiving a low price per garment is not getting any benefit. All the way along the chain, no one makes a terrible amount of money, yet everyone combines to oppress the person at the end of the chain—the person manufacturing the garment at home.
We have been given examples of another group of workers, those who do paper work at home, such as stuffing Christmas cards or catalogues into envelopes and sending them out. They too are often poorly paid for their work. We are seeking to target the provisions of new clause 9 to help such groups.
The hon. Member for Elmet does himself and his party no credit by pretending that we seek to put a restrictive blanket on all those who work from home. We see new clause 9 as being helpful to those who work at home from economic necessity. Home workers, unlike workers in many industries, do not have the benefit of trade unionists with particular responsibility for health and safety or someone in the personnel department with expertise in health and safety. The workers we are discussing are often women who are isolated in their homes and have no knowledge of health and safety. Probably they do not even know what risks they are running. It is important to consider the type of work being done at home. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said, home workers often deal with fire hazards. They deal with paper, which is highly flammable, or with material which is easily set alight, and both can cause major problems in the home. Home workers often do not know about that because they do not have the necessary expertise of trade unionists or personnel staff. They do not receive pamphlets from the


Department of Employment or guidance from the Health and Safety Executive. All we seek to do is to give them helpful advice and guidance from the Health and Safety Executive which, we propose, should have a special unit to provide such information.
To listen to the hon. Member for Elmet, one would think that we were dealing with a highly structured part of the economy, that it was marvellous to work at home and that everything was going swimmingly. What is wrong with that view? I must point out to the House that there is an economic argument against such exploitive labour. In the garment industry in particular there is no incentive for restructuring the way in which it conducts its business. If there is always somebody at the end of the line who is prepared to work for 50p per hour or less, there is no economic incentive to restructure that industry in such a way that it will operate on a modern and efficient basis. There is no incentive for anybody to invest in that industry because it can obtain such cheap labour. That is an obstacle to economic improvement and industrial restructuring and efficiency. The person at the end of the line has no choice and has to accept very low wages.
Hon. Members have discussed economic necessity. One reason why the overwhelming majority of low-paid people are women is the lamentable lack of child-care facilities. If there were proper child care in the workplace, women would not have to sit at home day after day, drudging for low wages. That is the reality of people's lives. They have no choice but to do demeaning and ill-paid work. One small thing that the House could do is at least to give them the knowledge that people within the Health and Safety Executive can give them advice on how to carry out work in the home. It is a small point, but it might save lives and put people's minds at rest. I hope that the House will support the new clause.

Mr. Haynes: I was not surprised at the speech by the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). He was the "expert" on mining and on the history of Arthur Scargill. He is now the "expert" on what we are discussing this evening. He knows nothing. Solicitors think that they know it all, but the workers know it all. Hon. Members are talking about people who should not have to do what they are doing. I support the new clause so that people will have proper protection. It would not surprise me if Conservative Members have home workers, so I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are allowing some protection in that respect.
Hon. Members have been discussing earnings. A statement was made not many days ago by the Secretary of State for Social Security. He said that there is no poverty in this land. The Secretary of State for Social Security and the hon. Member for Elmet should visit some constituencies to find out whether there is any poverty. That is why the people whom Opposition Members represent must do low-paid work in their homes. It is a disgusting state of affairs. At the same time, we receive directives from Europe stating that certain things that we do not like must be put into operation.
I know what happens in this country. The people who employ home workers visit their homes, but they are not concerned about safety. They are concerned about their earnings. They want to see how much profit they have made out of the wicked work that they impose on people just to make a few pence. As has been said, it certainly is the exploitation of women.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) mentioned disabled people. They should represent 3 per cent. of the work forces of many firms. However, some firms are ignoring the law because they are interested in the profit motive. For them, to take on a disabled person would prevent them from making the profits that they need to make. I am proud of a firm in my constituency. The proportion of disabled people in its work force is not 3 per cent. but 3·5 per cent. That firm is Mardon Illingworth. I am proud of what that firm is doing, but I am certainly not proud of what the Government are allowing to happen to people who work in the home.
My hon. Friends have explained the dangers. The hon. Member for Elmet said that Opposition Members' contributions were negative. I consider that the hon. Gentleman's contribution was a load of rubbish. He has been wheeled in by the Conservative party to put up a case against the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), which is in the interests of the people who need cover. I shall tell the House why the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and say that he will not accept the clause. It is because the clause relates not just to home working, but to the whole of industry, especially the mining industry, where the Government have run down the number of inspectors so that there are no longer enough to carry out the job properly. They have done that wicked thing in the name of reducing public expenditure. They want to cut public expenditure and pour the money instead into the pockets of the people who do not need it.
The employers of home workers are often fly-by-nights. We are talking about the black economy. Some of the people who employ home workers are real crooks when it comes to dealing with finance. They are not paying taxes. If the Government spent more money on inspectors to pick up those bods we might get £1 million or £2 million into the coffers to pass on to those people who really need it, so they do not have to work at home for slave wages. We criticise other nations about slave labour, but that is slave labour. While the Government allow it to continue and do nothing about it, we want proper inspections. That is what the new clause is about and why we will vote for it. I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will accept it.
Mr. Cryer: If there are the difficulties that the oleaginously patronising contribution from the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) suggested and a further definition was needed, the Minister could easily say that he would produce a new clause to replace this one in the other place. There would be no problem about doing that. The question is whether there is a political will. If, for example, the designer working at home is placed on a par with the example that I shall give of exploited Asian women earning 30p and less an hour, the designer at home will not have any recourse to that unit of the Health and Safety Executive.
However, the Government are very good at running advertising campaigns, especially with their cronies who have contributed to the Conservative party coffers. They could run one to draw attention to the unit of the Health and Safety Executive and say that if advice was needed about such matters as additives, the use of electricity and the danger of machines, those people who needed it would have the opportunity to obtain it. In other words, it would


give workers more choice. Therefore, the designer or the professional, who had a lot of knowledge and was working in adequate surroundings—if he used some Tippex, he would have adequate ventilation—would not bother to obtain advice, but the exploited worker would have the opportunity to seek out information and knowledge. That would be an additional power to those people and, as I say, it would be self-selecting.
The hon. Member for Elmet has no need to patronise the House with his false analogies and fake arguments, which are designed to protect the cowboy as well as the professional to whom he referred.
In my constituency there is probably the biggest greeting card manufacturer in the country. It has decent standards of employment and it recognises unions, which negotiate terms and conditions for its staff. However, it can be undermined by home workers. It is important that, where a company is prepared to invest in a factory and in plant and equipment, it should not be undermined by cowboys who do not invest in anything except a lorry and cardboard boxes or sacks to distribute the material around the various homes and who rely on the most primitive methods of assembly and construction to produce the equivalent merchandise.
I want to mention a case that was reported in my local evening paper, which refutes the case advanced by the hon. Member for Elmet. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if there is one cowboy operator, there should be provision to ensure that that operator can be stopped. If only one group of home workers are exploited and are using their children to participate in the work late at night, thus inhibiting their school attendance record, there should be legislation to stop such exploitation. Those cowboy operators should be stopped even if they represent a minority, but from the evidence gathered here today, I suspect that they represent more than a minority.
9.30 pm
I am pleased to say that investigative journalism on the part of the Bradford Telegraph and Argus unearthed an example of such exploitation. The headline related to the cost of a Christmas card and the article was about the immediate pre-Christmas period of 1988 when everyone is feeling comfortable and warm-hearted and the spirit of Christmas is at large, but not, apparently, at Astorgreen Ltd., greeting card manufacturers, of Glendale house, Goulbourne street, Keighley. It was producing cards and under-cutting firms such as the one in my constituency and was going round distributing cardboard boxes to be packed with Christmas cards.
The reporters from the local paper visited a number of the families who were doing that work. Some were afraid to be identified for fear of losing that work even though they were paid modest rates, but the article stated:
But some spoke out, including Nasim Begum, of Compton street who had just received a delivery of 19 boxes.
Through an interpreter, she said she would spend six hours a day packing the boxes of 1,000 cards and hoped to earn about £24 a week.
That is probably the amount that the hon. Member for Elmet gives out in tips to various waiters at the restaurants that he obviously visits extremely regularly and rather too well.
The article continued:

Her neighbour Mohammed Ghafoar said his wife Khataja Begum was giving up the work, after realising how much she was being paid … A local councillor said: 'I know of some children as young as seven who have been working late into the night and afterwards are fit for very little else. It is affecting their school work and home life and they are earning just pennies. Families earn £30 a week packing 17,000 cards.' … A man who had worked casually for Astorgreen recruiting new families said that when he worked for them piecework rates offered were as low as £3·25. He said families packing some boxes of 72 cards were being paid 31 pence per box and these boxes were being sold by Astorgreen to wholesalers for £5·70 a box.
That is a massive mark-up.
The entrepreneur—a figure no doubt loved by the Conservatives—who was not exhibiting the spirit of Christmas, but the spirit of the enterprise culture, was asked by the reporter to refute the allegations. The paper states:
Mr. Locker was given numerous opportunities to answer these allegations but refused to comment. On the first approach Mr. Locker told reporter Andrew Knight: 'I hear you've been out stirring things up. It's Friday, it's getting near Christmas and I am very busy. Go.'
Mr. Knight was shepherded out of the top floor of Astorgreen with Mr. Locker shouting after him to write or telephone for an interview. When phoned he refused to make an appointment. On later visits he covered photographer Ron Patchett's lens with his hand, and turned away reporters, Gerry Crookes and David Ford, empty-handed.
It is quite clear that there is a need for a unit to which home workers can go for advice and help. They need some sort of safety net on which they can depend, and some hand to which they can reach out.
The reporters of a major local paper, which is the only evening paper in the area and is widely respected, were turned aside with venom by that representative of the enterprise culture. That does not say too much about his attitude towards the home workers who were afraid of speaking out simply because of the possibility of losing their pittance.
The new clause may well lack definition. If it needs tidying up, all Opposition Members would be happy to hear the Minister say that he accepts it in principle and will ask one of the parliamentary draftsmen to tackle the problems. Such problems can be solved. When they encounter knotty problems in other matters, the Government rush through legislation. If the Minister is short of a parliamentary draftsman or two, why does he not go to the Department of Social Security, where he could find draftsmen who could weave magic round all sorts of problems? Draftsmen would have no difficulty in providing him with an adequate definition.
I welcome the new clause and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who has done so much work on the issue, has tabled it. If the Minister has a problem with the new clause, he should tell the House that he will wake up the Lords when the time comes and ask them to deal with a new clause to replace it. In the meantime, if anybody in Bradford, South is being exploited in the same way as the people in the case that I quoted, which took place as recently as last Christmas, I hope that they will get in touch with me, as their local Member of Parliament, or any other Opposition Member. We shall certainly take up their case and demonstrate the degree of exploitation that is taking place: part of our battle will be to fight against it.

Ms. Richardson: I merely wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on


instigating what has been such an excellent debate among Opposition Members. I assure her, as I am sure she knows, that her new clause has much official backing because it is very much a part of our policy to help home workers.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that the speech of the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) was one of the most patronising that I have heard. Perhaps the hon. Member for Elmet should go to the Department of Employment to see if there is any more up-to-date evidence than that which he produced tonight. I am a member of the Department of Employment's advisory committee on women's employment—I think that that is its full and splendid title. It meets about twice a year and I recall that, certainly more than 12 months, possibly two years ago, we had a meeting at which the Department of Employment produced a splendid piece of research on home working which it had commissioned. Each committee member was given the solid document which had been commissioned by the Department and we had an interesting discussion on it. Everyone was astonished and disturbed by its contents.
I see the Minister looking at the Dispatch Box. I do not expect him to reply. All I am saying is that I am sure that the Department of Employment could tell the hon. Member for Elmet that the sort of case which he is advancing will not help anybody. It certainly will not help those people, mainly women, as my hon. Friends have already pointed out, who work in disastrous conditions and for abysmal money which would not keep anybody. They work in conditions where their health and safety are severely at risk. I hope that the House will solidly support the new clause.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): The Government are opposed to new clause 9 for two main reasons.
First, it is for the Health and Safety Executive to decide how to allocate its resources and determine the number of inspectors. The system has always worked well, and we see no reason to undermine it now. For 1988–89, the Government gave the Health and Safety Commission an additional £6·7 million over the previously planned provision. That increase takes account of in-year adjustments, and allows for gross expenditure of £118·3 million. For 1989–90, provision will be enhanced by a further £8.8 million gross.
There is no question of the Government having tried to cut back on the amount made available for health and safety, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) suggested earlier. The extra provision has allowed the Health and Safety Executive to increase the number of factory inspectors to 604, with a target of 638 by the end of the year. That is the maximum number that the inspectorate can train and assimilate at one time.
At present, inspectors have powers under section 20 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to enter any premises, including the houses of home workers, to enforce relevant statutory provisions under the Act.
Secondly, we have no reason to believe that home workers' health and safety is a cause for concern. My Department put in hand an extensive programme of research into the number and circumstances of home workers in 1981. A lengthy and detailed report by Dr. Catherine Hakim, which formed the basis of the balanced contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and the centrepiece of the research

programme, was published in 1987 as Department of Employment research paper No. 60 and entitled "Home-based work in Britain". The search suggested that manufacturing home work, which is generally the aspect that causes concern, was much less extensive than had been thought. About 60,000 workers are thought to he employed in such work out of an estimated 250,000 home workers—that is, people who work at home, as distinct from those who use home as a base or "live on the job".
The research shed light on many key aspects of home working, but did not show any pressing need for action by the Government or any desire for such action on the part of home workers. In regard to health and safety, it found that
If anything, the health of home-based workers is somewhat better than the health of the working population as a whole
and that
in fact, the occurrence of accidents and of health problems resulting from work being done at home is very low indeed … apart from being extremely rare, accidents are typically of a trivial nature.
In both this debate and the debate in Committee on clause 4 of the Bill, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to a female home worker who had contracted leukaemia from using an adhesive containing benzine. Employers' general duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act cover risks relating to carcinogenic substances such as benzine as well as other risks. In addition, from 1 October 1989, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 will impose more detailed controls on the use of toxic substances, and there will be an approved code of practice under the regulations specifically relating to the control of carcinogenic substances. It will specify that
carcinogenic substances or processes should not be used or carried on where there is an equivalent but less hazardous substitute.
The regulations and the approved code of practice will apply to home workers as well as other employees, in the same way as other health and safety legislation applies to home workers at present.

Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister give us some idea how the Government could bring that information to the attention of home workers? One of the problems is that they tend to live in isolation and not to talk to other people. The materials are delivered to their homes. Will the Minister, for example, request the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that simple explanatory leaflets are required to he delivered by every employer to home workers so that at least they have some contact with the information?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, which I will consider. I know that a good many home workers, such as the substantial number in my constituency who are from ethnic minorities, will not be aware of such provision.

Mrs. Wise: I have a further query on that point. Will the new regulations apply to people who are perhaps working without a regular contract of employment or who are on some sort of commission basis, which is often the case with home workers so that the employer can avoid responsibility? Will the toxic substance regulations apply even in those circumstances?

Mr. Lee: I think that they will apply to everyone, but I shall have to check that.
As hon. Members will know, representations to Ministers have been made, particularly by the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers, disputing the findings of the research that I mentioned earlier. Especially disputed are the findings about the number of home workers employed in the traditional home working trades, such as clothing manufacture. These have been questioned. We have therefore agreed that officials should look again at the methodology behind the figures. The researcher, who has now left the Department to take up a professorship, has just reported and her comments are being considered and analysed.
At present, home workers who are employees have the protection of section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which requires employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all their employees. Under section 3 of the Act, employers also have to ensure that persons not in their employ are not exposed to risks from their activities. This includes the work put out to self-employed home workers. Furthermore, section 6 of the Act requires manufacturers and suppliers of articles and substances for use at work to ensure that they are safe so far as is reasonably practicable. In view of the findings of the research about the health and safety of home workers, we think that this protection is sufficient.

Mrs. Mahon: I cannot say that I am surprised that the Minister has seen fit to turn down what would have been a great help to people who are seriously exploited.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) for his contribution. I know that he came straight from the Select Committee after listening to the evidence of the home workers. He made some excellent points, especially about the European workers who are far better thought of by their Governments than our workers are by this Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) was right when he said that there is no great freedom in somebody spending hours at a sewing machine. Such people have no choice. They know that they are being exploited and we are trying to get that across to the Government. Obviously our pleas have fallen on deaf ears. My hon. Friend's other relevant point was that Britain's child care arrangements are abysmal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) certainly knows a lot more about the work force and about working than any clever Tory Government lawyer and I thank him for his contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made a useful point when he said that if the Minister was in any difficulty he could check on the definition of a home worker. The Bill could be delayed and the new clause could go to the House of Lords. However, we were not even given any hope of that. I was pleased to see my hon. Friend take the chance to expose the Dickensian employer in Bradford who is not only exploiting Asian women but who makes sure that a good dollop of child labour is thrown in.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be interesting to see which way the hon. Member for Keighley

(Mr. Waller) votes, because he is on record in the same paper from which I drew the example as saying that he would take action on this exploitation?

Mrs. Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As we know, many Conservative Members run to their local newspapers and wring their hands hypocritically, saying that they will take up a case, but we never see them in the Division Lobbies. It will be interesting to see whether the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is in the Lobby tonight.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) for her support, which I knew we would get.
The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) showed his staggering ignorance and arrogance in refusing to consider the facts that were put to him. No hon. Member on the Opposition side was deceived by the false analogies and the ridiculous comments that he made when talking about accountants and the growing number of consultants and brokers who are trying to make a fast buck on the Stock Exchange and who have had big computers installed at home. We were talking about the real people who do home work, as he knew well.
I am disappointed that the Minister refused to take the clause seriously. In his opening remarks he said that the Health and Safety Executive had always done things in a certain way. That is not set in tablets of stone. The House is the place where we make and change laws. That was a weak argument.
The Minister said that the number involved was small, at 60,000. I question that. The Minister knows well that many of the people on low rates of pay for home work also receive benefit. I found sadly that many of them, particularly women who are single parents struggling to bring up children alone, do not realise that they could earn more. They are hiding the small pittance that they earn, thinking that they are in breach of social security regulations when their earnings are so low that they are not.
I take the Minister to task about the increase in the budget for the Health and Safety Executive. The Government have it on the cheap. They cut expenditure on the inspectorate by 20 per cent. I understand that they may have started to increase it again. I am open to correction, but I think that the inspectorate can visit each factory only once every 12 years. Yet the Government have increased the number of DSS fraud inspectors by 160 per cent.
The Minister has the opportunity to tackle a growing problem, but I do not think that he will. I am bitterly disappointed at the Government's response, so my hon. Friends and I will vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 246.

Division No. 206]
[9.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Bidwell, Sydney


Anderson, Donald
Blair, Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boateng, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Boyes, Roland


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bradley, Keith


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Canavan, Dennis






Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Livsey, Richard


Cartwright, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clay, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Clelland, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McCartney, Ian


Cohen, Harry
McFall, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McLeish, Henry


Corbett, Robin
McNamara, Kevin


Cousins, Jim
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tarn
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Meale, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mullin, Chris


Fatchett, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Fearn, Ronald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fisher, Mark
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foulkes, George
Redmond, Martin


Fraser, John
Reid, Dr John


Fyfe, Maria
Richardson, Jo


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Robinson, Geoffrey


George, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rooker, Jeff


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Gordon, Mildred
Rowlands, Ted


Gould, Bryan
Sedgemore, Brian


Graham, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Short, Clare


Grocott, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Henderson, Doug
Snape, Peter


Hinchliffe, David
Soley, Clive


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Spearing, Nigel


Home Robertson, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Hood, Jimmy
Strang, Gavin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Straw, Jack


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Vaz, Keith


Howells, Geraint
Wallace, James


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Walley, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Ingram, Adam
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Janner, Greville
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wilson, Brian


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Worthington, Tony


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Wray, Jimmy


Kirkwood, Archy



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Mr. Allen Adams.


Litherland, Robert



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Allason, Rupert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Amess, David





Amos, Alan
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hague, William


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Ashby, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Atkins, Robert
Hanley, Jeremy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'llGr')


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Batiste, Spencer
Harris, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bendall, Vivian
Hayward, Robert


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Benyon, W.
Heddle, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Body, Sir Richard
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howard, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bottomley, Peter
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bottom ley, Mrs Virginia
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hunter, Andrew


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Irvine, Michael


Bright, Graham
Irving, Charles


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Jack, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Janman, Tim


Budgen, Nicholas
Jessel, Toby


Burns, Simon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Key, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Kilfedder, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Colvin, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knapman, Roger


Cope, Rt Hon John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cran, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knox, David


Devlin, Tim
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lee, John (Pendle)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dykes, Hugh
Lilley, Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
McCrindle, Robert


Favell, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Madel, David


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Maples, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marlow, Tony


Franks, Cecil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, George
Maude, Hon Francis


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miller, Sir Hal


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gow, Ian
Mitchell, Sir David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Sir Charles


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mudd, David


Grist, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony






Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steve
Summerson, Hugo


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thorne, Neil


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Redwood, John
Tracey, Richard


Riddick, Graham
Tredinnick, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trippier, David


Ritkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Viggers, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rost, Peter
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Ward, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, John


Shelton, Sir William
Whitney, Ray


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. David Maclean and


Stevens. Lewis
Mr. Tom Sackville.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered, That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

New Clause 11

BLACKLISTING AGENCIES

'It shall be illegal for an employer to obtain information about a prospective or existing employee from an individual or organisation which has as one of its functions the keeping of records about an individual's trade union or political activities or political views.'—[Mrs. Fyfe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It may help the House if I outline the kind of activity that can get people blacklisted. Let us take Bill Anderson, a Glasgow man who replied to an innocuous-sounding job advertisement, which appeared to have something to do with industrial relations. He received a reply from the Economic League, and it appeared that the job was about setting up an industrial espionage network. He refused to have anything to do with this organisation and ended up with his name on its blacklist.
Then there was the case of Sydney Scroggie, a blind pensioner from Dundee. This man wrote a letter to his local newspaper supporting Edinburgh district council's decision to buy a portrait of Nelson Mandela, and he ended up on the blacklist. Then there was the case of Hugh McMahon, a Member of the European Parliament, who in 1987 made a speech in the European Parliament against the South African Government's evil apartheid system and its secret police. A week later, he found that his name was on the Economic League's register.
Then there was the case of Derek Ogg, an Edinburgh solicitor, of whom Conservative Members might be interested to hear. He was the editor of a magazine aimed at the Edinburgh gay community, and the magazine was on sale in the anarchist bookshop, so he found himself described as an anarchist. That was interesting to him because he was the Conservative candidate in both district and regional elections and had been a chairman of his constituency Young Conservatives group.
Another case was that of Tom Stevenson, who was made redundant when the Caterpillar company closed in 1987. He became the treasurer of the workers' sit-in committee. He became registered by the Economic League as a Communist party supporter, but he had never been involved in any political party of any description.
My final example comes from my area. Hamish Imlach, a well-known folk singer in the west of Scotland, is another alleged Communist party supporter. When asked by "World in Action" why he thought he had been blacklisted and listed as a Communist party supporter, he replied:
During my performances I do have a go at Mrs. Thatcher and the Conservative Government.
At this rate, millions of us can expect to be on the blacklist, and if not, ask ourselves why not.
At the other end of the country, questions are being asked about TML. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members who are having private conversations have them elsewhere?

Mrs. Fyfe: It is obvious that the after-dinner speakers are present.
Questions are being asked about Trans Marche Link, the consortium building the Channel tunnel. A man called Larry Coleman, a trade unionists from Dover, has applied for work with TML 22 times, and has been turned down each time. He called a meeting of people who had been turned down for such work, and 100 came along. It so happens that the senior industrial relations officer of TML is a former senior employee of the Economic League. It is fair to say that TML denies any connection with the Economic League and that it does any blacklisting. It is interesting, therefore, that two men—the industrial relations officer and another manager at TML—attended an Economic League meeting in December 1987, when TML was recruiting many men. Apparently the two were acting on their own initiative and had no authorisation. Presumably, however, management is not too upset with them as the five companies that comprise TML—Costain Group, Taylor Woodrow, Wimpey, Tarmac and Balfour Beatty—are members of the Economic League. All five contribute large funds to Conservative party funds.
The House might be interested to know who else supports the Economic League. It acknowledges that several hundred companies are members of it. Some of the more famous names that were listed by the Economic League in October 1987—the list may now be out of date


as many companies have stopped supporting the Economic League following adverse publicity—included Allied Lyons, Asda, Bass, Beecham Group, British Telecom, the Building Employers Confederation, and numerous others. Indeed, 44 major construction companies subscribed to a special services group of that organisation. The Engineering Employers Federation is a member of the Economic League, as are other well-known names such as Fisons, Esso Petroleum, General Electric Company, Ford, Glaxo Holdings, Grand Metropolitan, GKN—I am giving all these names as I want them to appear in Hansard—Guinness, Hanson, Hill Samuel Group, IBM, ICI, Kleinwort Benson Group, Lucas Industries, Nabisco Group, Nestlé, Nissan, Rank Hovis McDougall, the Rover Group, RTZ Consultants, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, Shell UK, the stock exchange—that is a surprise—Tate and Lyle, TNT, Trafalgar House, Trusthouse Forte and Vickers. I emphasise that I have picked out some well-known household names, but there are hundreds of others.
Clearly a customer for anything from beer to biscuits or a cup of coffee to a car will have to be assiduous to avoid giving a contribution to that secretive organisation, which millions of people do not know exists.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: rose—

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the hon. Gentleman mind if I do not give way? I was well known for giving way frequently in Committee, but many hon. Members wish to speak in a short debate. I may give way later, but I should like to press on.
Donations to the Economic League can be large. In 1987, Lloyds Bank gave £5,600, Hawker Siddeley gave £6,700 and National Westminster Bank gave £8,960. It is not as though all those important companies received value for money. Mr. Richard Brett, who is the former north-west director of the Economic League, at a recent public meeting of the anti-blacklisting campaign revealed that of 45,000 personal records held by the Economic League, 35,000 were hopelessly inaccurate and out of date. It would seem that shareholders are not receiving much value for money.

Mr. Summerson: rose—

Mrs. Fyfe: I have already replied to the hon. Gentleman.
How does the Economic League get its information? Michael N oar, who is director of it, has revealed that it possesses cards on the electoral candidates of all political parties. It employs people to comb through newspapers and periodicals of the Left and Right, but mainly the Left, noting who has written a letter, who has supported who in trade union elections, who has become known as a trade unionist or political activitist and who supports apartheid, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Child Poverty Action Group and many other groups regarded as risky in the fevered imagination of this strange organisation. It does not check the accuracy of statements made in its journals. It spies on British citizens. A man called Ned Walsh was employed by it for 27 years to infiltrate pressure groups and trade unions and targeted anti-apartheid groups. He became the minutes secretary at the national executive meetings of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs before it became Manufacturing, Science and Finance.
The Economic League even gets people to black list themselves. Mr. Noar has frequently said that anyone who believes that the Economic League has a file on them may write in. He does not say that it asks inquirers to give their trade union, political affiliation and a £10 cheque. The league updates the register of persons if that person happens to be on it, and if the league has never heard of him before, it certainly has after that and he is registered.
10.15 pm
It is not as though the league's activities stop there. It does other things that have recently come to light. The leaders of the Economic League have been secretly advising the Prime Minister on anti-union law. Its director general was secretary of a small group of industrial representatives who met members of the Prime Minister's private staff in 1986 to promote harsher anti-trade union laws. The Economic League is now contemplating making up a blacklist of gays for use by life insurance companies and a list of hooligans for football clubs in expectation of the identity card scheme becoming law.
I shall briefly explain why the present law is inadequate. The Economic League, on which I have concentrated, is not the only blacklisting organisation; it is just the best-known and biggest. There are also various employers' federations and networks of personnel officers.

Mr. Summerson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fyfe: No.

Mr. Summerson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I suspect that it is a point of frustration. I doubt that it is a point of order, but I shall hear it.

Mr. Summerson: The hon. Lady has not told the House exactly what she is talking about. We want to know what the Economic League is.

Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not a point of order.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the Economic League is.
This new clause is required because the Data Protection Act 1984 compels only organisations that hold information on computer to reveal its contents. If an organisation keeps a card index instead, as well as a minimal amount of information fed into a computer, it can stay within the law as presently drafted and thereby pay no heed to the legislation's intent, which was to give British citizens information about themselves. The dreadful thing about all this is that vetting organisations—for the benefit of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), that is what the Economic League is—have the power to influence the employment prospects of thousands of people. That power far exceeds that of any Government official, even in wartime.
I should like to quote a couple of people whose views I respect in this matter. John Alderson, former chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, has said:
We've seen this in Europe before—unofficial organisations becoming a police force which is unaccountable. It's highly dangerous and quite improper.
Mark Hollingsworth and Richard Norton-Taylor, authors of an excellent book on the subject, write:
the essence of blacklisting is that people can be deprived of their livelihood, not because of their actions or even intentions, but for their beliefs in many cases suspected, not actual beliefs, even because of the views of friends and relatives.


Any Conservative Members who doubt a word of that need only read the great detail which I do not have time to give.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fyfe: I shall not give way to someone who is here on behalf of the Economic League.
The two authors continue:
In Britain the system is uniquely secretive, and the information recorded without the individual's knowledge.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it a point of order?

Mr. Riddick: Yes, it is, Sir. I should like to point out that I am not here on behalf of the Economic League. That is absolute nonsense. The hon. Lady's speech is not related to what appears on the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Fyfe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The authors say:
In Britain the system is uniquely secretive, and information recorded without the individual's knowledge. The victims are denied any chance to face their accusers.
It is for that reason that I call on hon. Members to end this abuse of our people's civil rights and support the new clause.

Mr. Chris Mullin: New clause 11 should appeal to any genuine democrats who may have found their way on to the Conservative Benches. I know from the opposition to the Official Secrets Bill that there are a few, although none of the hon. Members who put up such a principled stand are present this evening. New clause 11 also puts to the test the Government's alleged commitment to the lofty virtues of freedom and democracy, to which lip service is so often paid, but which are, in practice, treated with contempt.
The issue is simple, and has been ably stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). It cannot be right in a democracy for a person to be denied employment—in some cases for life—on the basis of information that has been secretly collected and secretly supplied—and which is often inaccurate—by sinister organisations such as the Economic League. There is no need to dwell on the Economic League because my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill has given some clear and damning evidence about the operations of that organisation, whose incompetence and untruthfulness have been amply demonstrated by many distinguished commentators and, notably, by the television programme "World in Action", one of the few remaining refuges for inquiring journalists in this country today.
However, I want to quote what Mr. Richard Brett, the former regional director of the Economic League—not "one of us" because he is a former Army intelligence officer —said about the league. He described the league's central register as "chaotic", "more fiction than fact" and "highly dangerous and undemocratic". The Economic League and other organisations associated with it are now widely discredited and I am happy to note that many companies are withdrawing their subscriptions. I also hear that the skids are finally under Mr. Michael Noar, the present director, and that could not happen to a nicer person.

Mr. Summerson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he enlighten the House on a point of information? I have no idea what the Economic League is. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House a thumbnail sketch of it? In doing so, he will do better than his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).

Mr. Mullin: It is a sinister, politically motivated organisation. I am offering a brief child's guide to it. It is funded by subscriptions from large companies and it collects intelligence—that is possibly too high a word—on individual employees, which is culled mainly from newspaper cuttings and which, in almost all cases, is unchecked. It then secretly feeds the information it has on its cards to its subscribers, which frequently results in wholly innocent persons losing their employment or not being offered employment. In some cases, I regret to say, it excludes people from employment for many years, and in one or two cases no doubt for life. I will give one example about which I know in a moment. The information used is often wholly inaccurate and that must seem wrong to anyone who is committed to democracy. I would like to think that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) shared my views on that.
This is not a Left-Right issue, because anyone could be affected by the league's activities. There are people on the hon. Gentleman's side of the political spectrum who have been denied employment on the basis of false information on the list, and I would like to think that the organisation and its activities were deprecated by all who pay lip service to the values of freedom and democracy.

Mr. Wallace: I recall reading the transcript of the Granada television programme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Perhaps he will tell the House whether he is satisfied that the Economic League always uses legal and legitimate means to obtain information. Does he have any information to the contrary?

Mr. Mullin: As my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said, it has infiltrated. I am not againt a bit of infiltration; I do it myself now and again for a good cause. But it has tapped into the information gathered by MI5 and the security services. It appears also to have contacts among the police. I note with satisfaction that, since the Granada television programme, the sources have dried up and one or two policemen have been prosecuted for passing on information. Any student of the activities of those who guard all that we hold dear will know that the information on their files is a mite inaccurate in any case.

Mr. Riddick: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) do not like the Economic League. How relevant is it to the new clause? Has the hon. Gentleman read new cause 11? It spreads the net far wider than organisations such as the Economic League. For example, if I want to employ a research assistant who had worked in the Conservative party, the new clause would stop me getting advice from the Conservative party on whether the prospective employee was a Conservative or held Conservative views, which would be fairly important when employing a research assistant. Is that the intention of the new clause?

Mr. Mullin: The new clause does absolutely nothing of the sort. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is not merely against the Economic League. It is against several


sinister organisations, of which the Economic League is only the best known, that operate in this country. The new clause does none of the things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mullin: I will not give way again. I have given way generously. I was proposing to occupy only a few minutes of the time of the House.
I place on record the experience of one of my constituents, whom I will not name because he recently found employment after many years of unemployment and I would not wish to do anything to jeopardise it. He was a highly qualified welding supervisor who had been in continuous employment and much in demand for many years until one day, working on a contract in Nigeria, on grounds of safety—not for any political reason—he refused to certify welds. He quickly found that his contract was ended, and, from that moment on, that all prospects of employment had ceased. His marriage broke up, he got into debt, and he spent years without work.
He cannot prove that he was blacklisted—it is extremely difficult to do so—but the suddenness with which the event that I described occurred and the fact that he could not obtain any clear reasons for the hundreds of refusals suggest that he probably was.
He heard that, on the Granada television programme, Mr. Michael Noar offered to show anyone what was contained in the Economic League's files if they wrote to him and requested him to do so. My constituent did so, to call Mr. Noar's bluff, and he has met with months of evasion. He had been asked, as my hon. Friends and others have been, for more information, the purpose of which was clearly to add to the league's files and not to provide him with any new information. He has so far not been successful in holding Mr. Noar to the pledge that he gave over a year ago.
That man's life and those of many other people have been blighted by the activities of the Economic League. The new clause is designed to put a stop to that. I look forward to that day, and I hope that the House will accept the new clause.

Mr. Riddick: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order on a matter that is important to me. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) suggested that I was speaking on behalf of the Economic League. I was doing nothing of the sort. However, the hon. Lady is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and she did not declare that interest at the beginning of her speech. She was clearly speaking for the Transport and General Workers Union.

Mr. Speaker: It would have been far better if the hon. Gentleman had made a speech about the matter rather than raising it as a point of order.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I make it clear that I speak for my constituents, but I also wear another hat in that I am chairman of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. That is an open and free organisation whose aims I believe are shared by many people in the country, including, if I am to believe her, the Prime Minister and all the Treasury Ministers, although her activities sometimes make me wonder about the veracity of that statement.
The point of the new clause is to stop insidious and secret activities being carried on, with the intent of collecting people's political affiliations for the purpose of denying them employment. Clearly, if anyone wishes to employ someone, he is entitled to check references and to ensure that that person is who he says he is. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) mentioned Ned Walsh. Ned Walsh was a member of what used to be called the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, which is now Manufacturing, Science and Finance. He purported to be a loyal trade union member and someone who had the anti-apartheid cause at heart. He was an extremely active member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. We thought of him as one of our most valuable members. Whenever there was a job to be done, he volunteered. If there was a weekend conference, he would volunteer to work on the stalls selling the material. No matter in which part of the country we required his assistance for the mundane work at conferences and meetings, Ned Walsh was always willing to help out.
However, then we discovered that Ned Walsh's connection with the Anti-Apartheid Movement was not because he believed in its cause, but because he was being secretly employed by the Economic League to find out who were members of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and to pass that information on to the Economic League, which would then file under the members' names the fact that they were political subversives and, therefore, dangerous to employ.
I do not know any hon. Member who would defend that practice or would say that that was something that should be done in a democratic society. If it were not for such activities, I would be happy to offer to the Economic League or any other body that wanted it, for a suitable fee, the entire membership list of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, because we are not a secret organisation. It is because of the threat of political and employment reprisals against our membership that our membership list is not available. If all that was being done was that the names were being sold for a political purpose, that would he bad enough, but what else did Ned Walsh say to the Economic League about the movement's members being unsatisfactory and therefore, for various reasons, should not be employed? That is not the kind of society in which we want to live and it is a practice that should be stopped at all costs.
The Economic League is able to evade any scrutiny of its records. It says that it does not keep computerised records, but its records are all on card files, and, therefore, as I understand it, it escapes the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. I do not believe that any hon. Member would defend such attacks on people's basic freedom to belong to open political organisations or that membership of such organisations should be used to prevent people gaining employment.
It is no use the Minister preaching the work ethic or the Prime Minister saying, "Look for a job, don't depend on the state", or the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt) saying, "Get on your bike and look for work" when there are organisations secretly compiling false and allegedly damaging material. What is even worse is that employers believe that to be a member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement or similar organisations makes one unfit for employment. There is a disgraceful conspiracy—

Mrs. Wise: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way, because I am already under pressure for taking too much time. I would be happy to give way on any other occasion.
It is a damning and disgraceful conspiracy that files are collected and that organisations refuse people employment on the ground that they belong to open political organisations. I applaud those companies that have refused to renew their subscriptions or withdrawn from the Economic League, but I condemn outright those organisations that have not done so.
I do not believe that the Government have done enough to end such secrecy and infiltration. If they are not happy about the precise words of new clause 11, they should at least accept it in principle.

Mr. Clelland: For the sake of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) who has gone off to get an early place in the taxi queue, I should make it clear that the Economic League is an organisation that keeps records about an individual's trade union or political views. Therefore, it falls within the parameters of the new clause. The Economic League is an insidious and subversive organisation and, in common with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), I condemn those companies that subscribe to it. Of those companies, I particularly mention Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. It was not slow to approach Labour Members of Parliament, the trade unions and the Labour local authorities recently in its battle against the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. Some of us have written to that company about its subscription to the Economic League.
I draw the attention of the House to a couple of cases that Robin Thompson and Partners, the solicitors acting on behalf of my union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, have taken up. The first example relates to Mr. X —I shall not give his name as I do not want to do the Economic League's work for it. Mr. X applied to work as a dumper driver at the site of a new prison at Thamesmead. He was puzzled as to why he had received no job offer after being told that the contractor was desperate for a driver and especially, as a local man, he seemed to be the obvious choice.
On Friday 18 July 1986, Mr. X returned to the site and spoke to a supervisor whom he had met a week earlier. The supervisor was apologetic, but told him that he could not take him on under any circumstances. Mr. X pressed him for a reason and the supervisor reluctantly told him that it was due to his
trade union activities in the past".
Although the supervisor was evidently sympathetic, he was under clear instructions not to recruit Mr. X under any circumstances.
In 1983 Mr. X applied to work as a steel erector with a company in desperate need of such workers. He had been asked for his national insurance number and his date of birth and had been told to be ready to work on the following Wednesday after his interview. On the Tuesday evening, however, the interviewer telephoned Mr. X to say that the company would not take him on as he was regarded as a "security risk". He would have been working at terminal four at London airport.
On 14 November 1988 he applied to BB and WW Erectors Ltd. for the position of a steel erector. That company was a sub-contractor to Wimpeys and Mr. X was

told that the main contractor would not on any account let him start work on the contract at the Woolwich prison site because he was "black listed". Mr. X told the solicitors that that phrase was expressly used by the company to explain its decision.
Mr. X complained to his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and to the data protection registrar. He confirmed—as suggested by my hon. Friends—that, although the Economic League held no records on computer, he believed that records were kept in other ways.
As further evidence of the activities of the Economic League Lord Wedderburn, writing in "The Worker and the Law", said that it maintained a:
'Research (Screening of Labour) Department'
He said that he had been present when managers had compared notes about information obtained about hiring from the
local police Red Squad",
whatever that may be. Lord Wedderburn said:
This is a serious and much ignored problem.
He went on to describe a case where a militant trade unionist gave a false name for fear of being on such a list. He was subsequently discovered and sacked. The employment appeal tribunal decided that although he had been dismissed for trade union activity it was not such activity in that employment but in the past and that, therefore, the industrial tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Industrial Law Journal of June 1987 in an article entitled "Anti-Union Discrimination: Practice Law and Policy" reported:
The most blatant form of pre-recruitment direct discrimination is the black list. All our construction employer respondents except one admitted to having excluded both known militants and others merely suspected of militant sympathies by virtue of having worked on strike-prone sites. Similar practices are chronicled in engineering, motors, docks, shipping and even the Police and prison services. The key to pre-recruitment discrimination is screening for selection.
Attention has already been drawn to the Economic League's black list following an expose in an item entitled "Boys on the Black List" in the "World in Action" on Granada television on 16 February 1987.
The solicitors who drew up the report of these events have considerable experience of cases of this sort. They conclude that all that can done is to gather evidence and report the
result to politicians who may, eventually, have some chance of altering the law.
They add:
Certainly, under the existing law there is nothing that we can recommend.
The House has a chance tonight to change the law. The practices to which my hon. Friends and I have referred must be outlawed if we are to call ourselves in future a free and civilised society.

Mr. Wallace: I first came across the existence of the Economic League shortly after the Granada television programme had been shown. A constituent drew my attention to the programme, which at the time I had not seen or heard about. He wondered whether the league's activities explained why he had not been able to find employment for a long time. I do not know whether he is on a list. Having been written to, I obtained a copy of the


transcript of the programme. On reading it, I was disturbed by the activities in which the league was involved.
I take the point of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) that if he wished to employ a research assistant it would not be unreasonable for him to ask Conservative Central Office whether an applicant was a member of the Conservative party. I fully accept that argument. Perhaps the clause is not as well drafted as it should be, but it has given us the opportunity to air legitimate concerns about organisations such as the Economic League. It may be legitimate to ask Conservative Central Office whether a prospective employee of a Conservative Member holds particular political views, but it is an entirely different matter when a society to which someone belongs, or legitimate trade union activities, can be used to stop someone gaining employment. I hope that the majority in a democratic society would regard that as wholly unacceptable.
We like to think that we live in an open and free society in which people can join societies such as the Anti-Apartheid Movement or take part in legitimate trade unionism without suffering any consequences apart from having to give up a great deal of time and, no doubt, a lot of money. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should be concerned that something that an individual does voluntarily causes him to lose out on employment opportunities. The clause may not be the ideal way of dealing with the problem, but I hope that the Minister will accept that there must be something wrong in society when individuals have to give a false name, as the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said, so that they will not be black listed.
I understand that it has been admitted by the Economic League that a vast number of entries are incorrect. The result is that people cannot get jobs, and they do not have any idea why that should be so. A constituent wrote to me on this issue, and the company involved does not feature in the list which was read out by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). The lady concerned was not cleared for security reasons, and she has no reason to believe that she has done anything to justify that. She says that there is nothing in her personal history to which such a decision can be attributed. The frustration of being in that postion is troubling her greatly. It is difficult to know how to advise a constituent with such a problem. There must be many others who, as a result of the activities of the Economic League, find themselves in equally frustrating positions.
If the clause proves not to be helpful in dealing with the problem, the fact that we have had a debate upon it will be helpful. A list of companies has been read out, and many of the companies are household names. I am sure that many of them have withdrawn from the league as a result of becoming more aware of its activities. It would be extremely useful if more companies took that action. Organisations such as the Economic League would not be supplying information unless there was a demand for it.
Many shareholders of respectable companies should be alert to the organisations to which their companies are subscribing. If demand for information drifted away, the suppliers would not have a market. If that happened, we would have a society in which people could feel free to join legitimate political organisations and express political views—perhaps eccentric ones—without fearing that their future employment would he threatened.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I have had some experience of the Economic League. Far from conforming to the picture that the Opposition have painted, it is an extremely helpful and useful source of data in the investigation of sinister Left-wing organisations. The mere fact that Labour Members and their allies in the media are going bananas about it suggests that it must be doing something right.
As a Westminster city councillor I took a great interest in Left-wing organisations that masqueraded as socially conscious bodies. I wished to investigate the web ofcorruption in Islington and Camden councils, which I subsequently wrote about in a pamphlet called "Qualgosiust Grow": it became a critical piece ofevidence for the Widdicombecommittee. The Economic League was able to give me a good deal of very useful help when I was in the process of tracing that net work.
Another organisation with sinister Left-wing attributes that I am investigating is the London Food Commission, which is trying to scare the life out of our housewives and to undermine the motives of the food industry. Again I found an excellent databank of journals and magazines, which told me all about the organisation and helped me to bring it to the attention of the House and the British housewife, who has been led up the garden path.

Mrs.Wise: rose—

Mrs. Gorman: Far from being the underground and sinister organisation depicted by the Left, the Economic League is dedicated to exposing the corruption arid the insidious goings-on that Left-wing organisations are getting up to.

Mrs. Wise: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) chose not to give way after she had impugned the respectability and academic worth of the London Food Commission, which is doing extremely useful work in alerting people to the dangers and drawbacks of the food that they eat. I am afraid that that is symptomatic of the Conservatives' attitude: anyone who does not agree with them is bound to be sinister.
I have seen the Economic League's entry on a certain job applicant. One of the most "iniquitous" comments on the record was that that person had been a member of the GLC. No doubt that would meet with the approval of Conservative Members, who think that anyone who is not elected to represent the Conservative party must inevitably be sinister, but some of us on the Opposition Benches consider it entirely respectable and desirable to be elected as a Labour representative to serve the public interest. We commend those academics and others who speak out in the public interest regardless of attempts by sinister organisations to blight their future employment prospects.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on her contribution. I believe that this has been a useful airing of a dangerous and long-standing practice which goes back for generations. My grandfather was blacklisted by the Economic League. Some of us have watched it over the years, and we know how detrimental it is to the interests of ordinary people who seek simply to live a decent, law-abiding, respectable life and to earn a living while so doing.

Mr. Riddick: The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has made the mistake made by a number of Opposition Members in suggesting that new clause 1 I will tackle the problems presented by the Economic League, but will do


nothing else. In fact, it is all-embracing. For example, if the shadow Leader of the House or the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to take on a research assistant, it would be illegal for them to check with the Labour party to see whether a prospective research assistant was a Trotskyist infiltrator. The new clause is all-embracing and would not do what it sets out to do.
Do the Opposition think that it would be sensible for an employer with many workers from ethnic minority backgrounds not to check to see whether a prospective employee had any connections with, for example, the National Front? It would be perfectly sensible for an employer to make such a check. We have recently seen how an extremist revolutionary Trotskyist cell tried to infiltrate British Telecom. It is sensible for that employer to make reasonable inquiries to discover whether a potential employee had a background that was likely to lead him into disrupting the company.
It is simplistic to think that such a new clause will have the desired effect. It has provided an opportunity for Opposition Members to attack an organisation that they do not like. The new clause is thoroughly counterproductive and I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Lee: The main purpose of the proposed new clause is to stop employers getting information about prospective or existing employees from organisations which have as one of their functions the collection of information about the trade union, political activities or political views of individuals. It is clearly aimed at preventing employers from using information from organisations such as the Economic League to vet potential employees before offering them a job, or obtaining information from such sources about existing employees. Hon. Members will recall that we had an Adjournment debate about the activities of the Economic League in December.
An indirect effect of the new clause would be to place restrictions on employers' recruitment procedures. The Government's position is that employers must be free to choose how to go about recruiting and selecting new employees, provided that they do not discriminate unlawfully on the basis of race or sex. After all, it is employers who know their own businesses best, and it seems perfectly reasonable that they should be able to choose whom they wish to employ. If they choose to seek information from an independent source about a particular individual, that seems to be a sensible way of ensuring that those selected are suited to the job in question. After all, selection of the wrong person can have a disastrous effect on a business.
I have already stated my view that this clause is aimed at the activities of organisations such as the Economic League. Let me make clear that there is nothing illegal about an organisation setting itself up, as the Economic League has done, and providing a service. Nor is there any reason why employers should not be able to use the services of such organisations. But I emphasise that there is a heavy responsibility on those who compile such information to ensure that it is accurate. Equally, employers who use such information must satisfy themselves about its quality and accuracy.
There is another very important reason why employers should have freedom to recruit who and how they wish and why this new clause should be rejected. Too many

restrictions only add to the burdens on employers and make them reluctant to take on new recruits. That can only be bad news for the unemployed because it reduces the number of new employment opportunities.
The Economic League confirms that it is willing to send to a person on request and after proper identification a complete list of all the league's references under his name, and that this should normally be free of charge.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided:Ayes 170, Noes 238.

Division No. 207]
10.54 pm]


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Allen, Graham
George, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gordon, Mildred


Ashton, Joe
Gould, Bryan


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Graham, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Battle, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beckett, Margaret
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Haynes, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Henderson, Doug


Bidwell, Sydney
Hinchliffe, David


Blair, Tony
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boateng, Paul
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Janner. Greville


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clay, Bob
Kirkwood, Archy


Clelland, David
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, John
McFall, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
McWilliam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Doran, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Douglas, Dick
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael


Eadie, Alexander
Meale, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Michael, Alun


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Fraser, John
Pendry, Tom


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L.






Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Soley, Clive


Quin, Ms Joyce
Spearing, Nigel


Radice, Giles
Steinberg, Gerry


Redmond, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Straw, Jack


Reid, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Richardson, Jo
Wallace, James


Robertson, George
Walley, Joan


Robinson, Geoffrey
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N.


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Worthington, Tony


Short, Clare
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Mr. Allen Adams and


Snape, Peter
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amos, Alan
Fookes, Dame Janet


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Franks, Cecil


Banks, Robert (Harrogale)
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, George


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, W.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodlad, Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gow, Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hague, William


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heddle, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cran, James
Hind, Kenneth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hordern, Sir Peter


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howard, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Durant, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Emery, Sir Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Evennett, David
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Favell, Tony
Hunter, Andrew





Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Janman, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rost, Peter


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Kilfedder, James
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knowles, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Knox, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lee, John (Pendle)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speller, Tony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Stevens, Lewis


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Summerson, Hugo


Madel, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maples, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thorne, Neil


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trippier, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Miscampbell, Norman
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Sir David
Walden, George


Monro, Sir Hector
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waller, Gary


Morrison, Sir Charles
Ward, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wells, Bowen


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Wilshire, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Winterton, Nicholas


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Yeo, Tim


Porter, David (Waveney)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, William (Corby)



Price, Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Raffan, Keith
Mr. David Maclean


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
. Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned. [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to he further considered tomorrow.

Control of Concentrations

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document Nos. 5936/88 and 9822/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 12th May 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings; notes the United Kingdom's general reserve; but supports the Government's intention to continue to contribute constructively to discussions with the Commission and other Member States in order to see whether the outstanding issues can be resolved.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise two brief points of order. The first relates to documentation. The explanatory memoranda which were submitted to the Vote Office and the Scrutiny Committee on 10 June 1988 and 31 January 1989 were supplanted by a more recent memorandum dated 12 May 1989.
The Scrutiny Committee was not able to consider that last explanatory memorandum until its meeting today, and it subsequently placed in the Vote Office at about 6 o'clock this evening a summary and response to that explanatory memoranda together with a summary of the evidence given by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry before the Committee last February. I think it important that I put those documentary points to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I also obtain your confirmation that Standing Order 14(1)(b) gives some option to the Chair in that if the time for such a debate relative to the importance of the matter appears to be insufficient the debate could be held over at the discretion of the Chair?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I thank the hon. Member for the first point he raised, which is a helpful point of information. He is correct in what he said in making his second point: there is discretion on the part of the Chair.

Mr. Maude: The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for drawing attention to the further scrutiny which his Committee has been able to give to this document in the course of today.
We now debate a proposal for a regulation for the control of mergers with a European dimension. Certain mergers may already be controlled at the European level under articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome. The question raised by these documents is, therefore, not whether there should be control of mergers at the Community level but, rather, the nature and extent of that control.
The questions essentially are these: could a regulation provide a more efficient and effective mechanism for such control, and what should be the balance between Community and national controls?
The Commission's proposals for a Community merger control regulation require unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers. We continue to maintain a general reservation on the principle of a regulation. It is important to look at the totality of the proposals. Many important issues remain unresolved, and we shall maintain such a reservation until the proposals as a whole go a good deal further towards meeting our concerns.
Several major issues are still to be resolved on the regulation, and much detailed technical work remains to be done. One major issue outstanding is the level of turnover thresholds which would determine which mergers would fall within the scope of the regulation. There has been much discussion about the most appropriate level for these thresholds. In common with France and Germany, we believe that the regulation should cover only the really big cross-border mergers in the Community. That means that higher thresholds than the Commission has proposed should be enforced.
It also means that if, as Commissioner Brittan has proposed, the thresholds should be reviewed after a transitional period, there should be no automatic, pre-arranged change in the threshold levels. Any review of the threshold levels should have the aim of establishing whether, on the basis of experience, there was a real need to alter the levels, either down or, indeed, up.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a member of the former indirectly elected European Parliament, I am far from clear about who takes these decisions on major mergers. Is it one commissioner, or one directorate, or the whole Commission?

Mr. Maude: All proposals that come from the Commission are made by the whole Commission, but they are generally brought to the Commission by a single commissioner. Proposals are usually drawn up by officials in certain directorate generals within the Commission. In the ordinary course of events, a major proposal would not come before the Council of Ministers unless it were approved by the Commission as a whole—not necessarily unanimously.
There is also the question of the criteria by which mergers should be assessed to determine whether, in the words of the draft regulation, they are compatible with the Common Market. We and Germany firmly believe that the criterion must be the effect on competition. Others believe that considerations of industrial policy should be brought into the assessment. We believe that there would be a risk to competition if the criteria were defined as the Commission has proposed. The prime concern must be competition. We are strongly opposed to the Commission using a regulation such as this as a means of promoting an industrial policy of its own. That is not what a regulation for the control of mergers should be about.
Another major concern is the complicated legal question regarding the relationship of the proposed regulation to articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome. We are naturally concerned to clarify the relationship between a regulation and the treaty's competition provisions, because we believe that there should be one community regime, not two. Any solution to the problem of articles 85 and 86 is related to the questions of criteria and procedures.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We know in this House, to our cost, or perhaps not to our cost, that some of the larger mergers have political implications. If there is a merger with a potential political implication that is taking place, what political organisation or institution is going to be able to take account of those political implications? In other words, how is democracy going to have any impact on these merger discussions once the Commission itself is involved?

Mr. Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Alex Carlile: It does not now.

Mr. Maude: In a way, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is right in what he says from a sedentary position. We seek to insulate the decision on whether a merger should be prevented from taking place, which is essentially a decision about whether shareholders should be allowed to sell their shares to a willing buyer, from the political process. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry takes a decision only after having advice from the Director General of Fair Trading. He does not have the power to block a merger, unless the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which is independent, has made an adverse public interest finding. To a considerable extent, even in domestic law the process is insulated, and properly so, from political pressure.

Mr. Marlow: I agree with my hon. Friend and think that that is right and proper. But, despite that, the Government can make a statement on a merger or merger policy or, despite that, a private notice question can be tabled by the Opposition and there will be democratic discussion of it, although I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said. Is there not another danger—that the Commission, when looking at these issues, might for its own political purposes and political reasons decide on a particular outcome for a particular proposal?

Mr. Maude: That is right, which is why it is important that if a regulation is to come into force, which is by no means settled yet, it should set out clearly the criteria that the Commission must apply. It is not a question of whether there should be a merger-control regime within the Community because the Commission has asserted, and the court has upheld, its power to control mergers under articles 85 and 86 of the treaty, which have remained in place since it was signed. If we set up the right merger-control regime, there will be more scrutiny of its decisions and its decision-making will be more transparent than the current method by which it investigates mergers.

Mr. Alex C'arlile: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems with current domestic scrutiny of mergers and monopolies is that there are no clearly understood criteria by which they are judged when references are made? Sometimes one does not know why a reference was made. Does he agree that the Community's proposal sets out economic or financial standards that make it clear to all those involved in potential mergers and acquisitions whether they will be referred for Commission consideration? Is that not an advantage?

Mr. Maude: It is simply not the case that the regulation provides the certainty that the hon. Gentleman seeks. A company will not know for certain whether a merger will be investigated. Such certainty would not be possible under any merger-control regime. Only when a proposed merger is subject to scrutiny do its full implications begin to emerge and are decisions made. It is not possible—this is a fairly consistent criticism—for there to be an absolute test against which any prospective merger can be measured to know whether it offends against the criteria. I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism that the criteria are uncertain under our system. The factor that most motivates us when deciding whether to refer a merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is its effect on

competition. That is not so on all occasions, but in the two years that I have had my responsibilities we have referred only one merger to the MMC on grounds other then competition.
Even the Commission acknowledges that its proposal to resolve problems with articles 85 and 86, which it is linking directly to its proposals for thresholds and criteria, would not be completely immune to challenge in the courts. Everyone agrees that the legal position must be explored further.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the Commission is misled by evidence given to it which leads to it making an incorrect decision—this is not a hypothetical example because it appears to have occurred in important mergers —what will happen under the regulation? My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned a court, but I understand that a court would not be relevant to this possibility. If the Commission discovered that information given to it, by which it took its decision, was fraudulent or incorrect, or if those in Brussels had misled it, what will happen? I am sure that this matter will have been considered carefully by people such as myself who have examined the proposed regulation.

Mr. Maude: I suspect that my hon. Friend has in mind something more specific than might have appeared at first sight. I do not know the answer, but I shall endeavour to supply it before the debate concludes.
Also to be resolved is the relationship between any European regulation and the activities of national merger administrations. We are concerned that as far as possible businesses should not be exposed to what has become known as double jeopardy—the need to seek national and Community approval for a merger. In practice, it would probably be impossible to avoid at least some overlap between the Commission and national merger administrations, but it should be kept to a minimum and, broadly speaking, the Commission should have exclusive jurisdiction over those mergers that would fall within the scope of the regulation.

Mr. Cash: Articles 85 and 86 prescribe an abuse of dominant position as the main criterion. Whether or not one chooses a threshold, above or below that line one can still find that the matter can be challenged under those articles anyway. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a problem irrespective of whether one seeks to avoid double jeopardy?

Mr. Maude: It is precisely that extremely difficult legal angle that needs to be further explored. The Commission has accepted that its proposals do not put the matter entirely beyond scrutiny by the courts. My hon. Friend is a considerable expert and will know the difficulties. Further work must be done.
I am now able to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that the regulation as framed would provide for fines to be imposed on a party that either failed to notify or supplied incorrect information.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to be difficult. Who decides on the fine? Is it similar to the anti-dumping regulations—the Commission simply comes to a decision? What happens if there is a complaint and it is not clear whether the Commission has been misled? How does he Commission decide the figure? On what basis is it


calculated? What can the aggrieved party do about it? We have seen a few recent examples when the Commission fixed a figure and did not explain. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Industry will be well aware of the position on the fixing of levies with respect to anti-dumping. Does the Commission reveal why it fixed a certain fine? Does it have the power to say that company X is fined a certain amount? That seems to be astonishing for a democratic organisation.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend has a considerable thirst for knowledge on this subject and I am able to satisfy it. The Commission would be able to decide on these matters. I cannot set out the exact criterion on which it would decide and the tariff of fines that it would apply. I do not think that that needs to be set out in detail at this stage. It would be open to the Commission by ordinary decision to impose a fine.
We are concerned also to achieve timescales and procedures in the regulation that would be as—

Mr Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr. Maude: I should like to make progress.

Mr. Marlow: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give way on this point. He has said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that individual citizens are in jeopardy because they may receive a fine, perhaps a large one. Will my hon. Friend explain what rights they will have to plead against that levy being imposed on them, how they will be able to appeal and what the legal rights of the citizen will be? We know that in the present circumstances in the United Kingdom there are various procedures which can ensure that justice is available to the citizen who has been arraigned. How would that carry through under the proposals? Was that long enough?

Mr. Maude: It was long enough for me to be able to supply an answer to the previous question. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for supplying him with an opportunity to get a great deal more exercise than he would ordinarily have. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East that the fines applicable would be up to 50,000 ecu for failing to notify or for supplying incorrect or misleading information. Those decisions would not be of a criminal law nature. I will endeavour to satisfy the proper curiosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North on the matter of possible appeals against those fines.
We are concerned to achieve time scales and procedures under this regulation that will be as short and as little cumbersome as is practical, to provide clarity for companies and to achieve a balance between speed and fairness for all the parties involved. In practice, there might be informal approaches to the Commission in advance of notification which might develop, in time, along the lines of the confidential guidance system that operates in the United Kingdom, although there are, as yet, no specific proposals to that end.
One area that the proposals do not address is the barriers—which are more extensive in some member states than in others—to mounting successful contested

takeovers. We have made it clear that the proposed merger control regulation should be considered within the wider framework of barriers to takeovers. Such barriers are simply not compatible with the completion of the single market. We are not alone in our concern. That is why the Commission and other member states supported our initiative at the end of last year on the need for action on this front.
In response to our initiative, the Commission has agreed to undertake a study on this subject. We look forward to seeing the results of the study which, I understand, is due to be completed by the summer recess. There will be major implications for some British businesses, but the likely overall benefits for business in the United Kingdom and in the Community as a whole make it important to tackle the barriers. We intend to keep up the pressure on that. I urge the House to support the motion.

Ms. Joyce Quin: I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place. As we all know, there have been recent important negotiations within the European Community Council of Ministers on this subject, so it is right that the House should be having a debate. However, it is a matter of regret that the debate is taking place at a late hour and is also short, because we are discussing an important topic.
Useful background work to the debate has been undertaken by the Select Committee on European Legislation; also, a report on EC merger control has been prepared in another place. It is true that a regulation on EC merger control has been doing the rounds for a long time—since 1973—but it is equally true that the spate of mergers in recent years and the approach of 1992 have given a fresh impetus to those discussions.
The Opposition have been concerned about the merger mania that we have witnessed and also about the Government's seeming complacency when faced with those events. We are concerned about the criteria that the Government apply to evaluating mergers and our worry about the Government's national merger policy makes us worried about their attitude in the negotiations currently taking place in the EC.
I am also far from convinced that the Government are treating the matter with the seriousness that it deserves. I have been informed—I hope that the Minister will be able to contradict me—that at the last Council meeting two weeks ago, when this matter was discussed, the United Kingdom was represented by the No. 2 official in the United Kingdom permanent representation in Brussels, whereas other countries—France and Germany in particular—were represented at ministerial level. If that is true, why was it allowed to happen? Surely, with the number of Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, one of them should have been there.

Mr. Maude: Perhaps I can explain that. We have a much better record of attending Councils at ministerial level than most other countries. I was unable to attend the Council meeting, as I ordinarily would to represent the United Kingdom, because I had to be in the House to take part in the Second Reading debate on the Companies Bill.

Ms. Quin: I accept the Minister's explanation, but there are several Ministers within the Department. It appears


that the Government were isolated in the discussions. At least that is the story that appeared in several newspapers the next day, and I have some cuttings with me.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady should know by now that she should not believe everything that she reads in the newspapers. It is nonsense—it has been nonsense from the outset—to say that the United Kingdom has been isolated on the issue. We are closely aligned with the German Government's attitude, and we are close to the French Government on most of the outstanding issues. The hon. Lady should take the trouble to find out a bit more about what is going on.

Ms. Quin: Again, it was my understanding that various Commission officials had said that the threshold that the Government favour was much higher than that favoured by any other country. [Interruption.] If the Minister says that that is incorrect, I am happy to accept it.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Lady's point belies the efforts made by this Government to get some sense from competition policy. The previous Commissioner had an initial limit of 1 billion ecu. We are now at least talking sensible terms for this policy, and I wish that the hon. Lady would give the Government credit for their efforts to get it to that level.

Ms. Quin: The rumours from Brussels suggest that the competition Commissioner, who is after all this Government's appointee, favours a lower threshold than that favoured by the Government.
The Prime Minister, who was at great pains to dismiss the previous Conservative Commissioner because he had gone native in Brussels, now seems to be faced with a similar difficulty, even though this Conservative Commissioner has held his office for only three or four months. Perhaps the Minister would like to deny the rumours that there are differences of view within the Government about the regulation. Obviously, I have no other information than what I have read in the press because I am not party to Cabinet discussions.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it usual for speeches in this House to be based upon facts or upon rumours?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is usual in this House for any hon. Member to express himself or herself as they wish and for other hon. Members to have the tolerance to listen.

Ms. Quin: We hope that there are no disagreements between one Government Department and another. However, no hon. Member can deny that there have been clear divisions on European policy on the Conservative Benches recently. I am not simply relying on rumours when I make that point.
The rather vague form of words of the motion has been supplemented by an amendment tabled by Conservative Members, which takes a different view about this policy. Perhaps it would be unwise for the Opposition to intrude on private grief. However, we will obviously watch developments to see whether the Government can reach an agreement with Tory Back Benchers on this issue.
As I said earlier, the Labour party has been concerned about the spate of mergers that have occurred in recent years. Our view of what finally emerges as a regulation

from Brussels will be coloured by what we judge the practical effects of such a regulation would be on our economy and our future industrial prospects.
Obviously, even if a regulation is not adopted in the near future, the Commission has powers under existing competition articles of the treaty of Rome. We are worried that those competition rules do not seem to have improved the situation and we face a very uneven playing field which seems particularly to disadvantage the United Kingdom.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister skated over the fact that the criteria in Brussels will clearly be different from those currently used by the Government? The Minister may shake his head, but public interest—however that may be defined by this House—is a criterion used in this place. In Brussels the EEC would have to determine that with regard to EEC interests. In that regard, does my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) recall the takeover bid by Feruzzi for Hillsdown, which put at risk the whole of the Commonwealth import of sugar? If that had been conducted in Brussels, that bid might have gone through and had an enormous effect on our Third-world connections.

Ms. Quin: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I want later to discuss the criteria governing this regulation and the Government's view of those criteria.
When we consider whether mergers should be allowed, we must bear in mind that the Government have said that their main criterion is competition policy. That point was repeated in the minutes of evidence given by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs and by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Select Committee on European Legislation. Competition was mentioned as the main or possibly even the only criterion, but the Secretary of State mentioned other national interests, such as defence. The Minister said that the media were another area in which there might be a special national interest and where special criteria may apply. I was amazed to read that in the evidence to the Select Committee. The Government have sat by complacently watching large sections of our media fall into very few pairs of private hands.
The need to consider other criteria has been stated by others who gave evidence to the European Communities Committee which dealt with this matter in another place. In that Committee, the Law Society of Scotland stated strongly that competition should not be the sole criterion, that other factors should be considered. It referred in particular to the regional dimension:
We consider the Commission should be empowered to look at the impact of a merger not only on the economy of the EEC as a whole, but also on a national or even regional economy, such as that of Scotland … It has been the experience of Scotland within the United Kingdom that larger enterprises will tend to be controlled from the South East of England with detrimental effects, for example, on professional support services in Scotland. It is possible that this experience will be repeated on a larger scale within the EC single market, depending on the effectiveness or otherwise of the provision for the reduction of regional disparities.
That reference to Scotland could apply equally to the north-west, Wales and other areas. The Government should give greater importance to that.
I also believe that the long-term industrial and economic interests must be taken into account. We are very concerned that at the moment too many managers


seem to be looking out for potential predators or planning mergers themselves instead of trying to ensure adequate investment for the future well-being and long-term prosperity of their companies.
Finally, I believe that the interest of employees, whose livelihoods may be dramatically affected by mergers, should be considered. Of course, that idea is anathema to a Government who have consistently blocked any such moves within the European Community. None the less, I know that there are pressures from the European Parliament and from elsewhere to take such matters into account.
I remember, for example, that when this proposed regulation was debated in the European Parliament in October, an amendment was passed that has been incorporated into the amended version of the directive under article 17, and which reads:
Applications to be heard on the part of members of the administrative or management organs and the acknowledged employees' representatives from the undertakings concerned, shall in all cases be granted".
I can imagine the Government's reaction to that article. However, we feel strongly that those who are employed in firms that are the subject of takeovers should be consulted and that their interests should be taken into account.
Many other issues are raised in the proposed regulation which, unfortunately, time does not allow me to discuss in detail. Those include the problems of how well equipped and structured the Commission is to cope with the tasks that it is proposing to carry out and what institutional changes, if any, might be desirable, such as improving the role of the hearing officer. Much time could have been spent—perhaps other hon. Members will do this—analysing the possible conflicts between national and European action on mergers, which is very much a grey area in the proposed regulation, and also the possible legal difficulties over the conflicts between the implementation of articles 85 and 86 of the treaty and whatever is agreed in the new regulation.
The Government's approach to the subject is highly unsatisfactory. Their tactics in the negotiations appear to be in danger, at least, of leading to their isolation, but their approach to the substance appears to fail to address the real problems created by the merger situation that we have seen happening too frequently during the past few years.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I have been listening to the hon. Member with great care. Is the Labour party in favour of or against a European Community concentrations policy?

Ms. Quin: We recognise that, under the existing treaty, there is scope for the European Commission to act in relation to competitions and mergers. We would like to see those existing powers used more sensibly, along the lines that I have suggested.
We want decisions to be made in Europe that will promote the long-term industrial and economic health of our large companies.

Mr. Marlow: By who?

Ms. Quin: By all concerned. We want to see decisions that will help to reduce regional imbalances and that will help employment. Relying simply on competition and on the operation of market forces is not the answer.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This is is a very important regulation, because, basically, the regulation, as amended, would in many cases override the provisions that we now have in law, since it would remove
the ability of the Secretary of State to allow a merger prohibited by the Commission and it is intended that Member States should not be entitled to prohibit a merger specifically authorised by the Commission on the grounds that it contributed to the achievement of one of the basic objectives of the Treaty.
It is a massive transfer of sovereignty. Instead of elected Ministers, who are answerable to the House, deciding whether mergers should go ahead, non-elected Commissioners will do the job.
We are, therefore, taking a huge decision. Those Commissioners will not be answerable to the House in the same way as Government Ministers. They will not have to give the reasons for decisions. As with all such matters, we are deciding this matter late at night, so that the public will have no idea what is going on. Three big decisions will be made this week. It is crazy but there will be nothing in the papers about this tomorrow and nothing on "Today in Parliament". Instead of our elected Ministers doing the job, we are transferring it to the Commission. The Commission, of course, has the power to tell Ministers that they are wrong and to overturn their decision.
There is no point in talking about this because our views on such matters are wholly irrelevant. They do not matter one bit and I am sure that they will not affect the decisions reached in any way, because all the decisions have been made, except for a couple of minor points.
I have a simple question: will the Government send out some kind of pamphlet to British firms so that they know about the new situation?

Mr. Bowen Wells: My hon. Friend has just said that what he and the House say makes no difference to the decisions that will be made in Europe. The Minister has been battling away and arguing strongly from a reasonable, sensible and reasoned basis with his European colleagues. He has consulted the House on two occasions and addressed the European Legislation Committee. He has managed to make major changes to proposals from the Commission. I suggest that my hon. Friend is insulting the Minister by suggesting that there is no point in him going to Europe and doing the hard work that he performs on our behalf.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry if I gave any impression that I was insulting the Minister. I was insulting the constitutional arrangements whereby, in the majority of cases, admittedly, not in this one, we think—although it is up to the Commission; it can change its mind—matters are decided by majority vote. Therefore, the views of the House are not relevant. The case before us tonight is different, because, we hope, it must be subject to a unanimous decision. In this case we can say no, but the Minister is well aware that most things are decided by majority vote. In that case the views of individual Ministers are not terribly important. However, I am sure that the Minister is working terribly hard and doing all in his power to ensure that the proposals put to us are the right ones.

Mr. Maude: It is important to stress to my hon. Friend that the regulation does not involve a transfer of


sovereignty—that was done when the treaty of Rome was signed. The Commission has competence in competition matters and over mergers and that has been asserted and upheld by the European Court of Justice. My hon. Friend is right to say that the regulation must be agreed unanimously. Therefore, we have considerable influence over its form. If we can negotiate on it and it emerges in a satisfactory form, it will give Ministers more control than at present.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister is well aware that I never quote any figures unless they are Government ones. The quote I read was not written by me, but it was a direct quote, word for word, from the explanatory memorandum from the Government. I am sorry if that quote was incorrect or misleading, but the Minister will be well aware that I was quoting the words in the document before us. I am sorry if that has given the wrong impression, but we are given a lot of papers and, to avoid any misunderstanding, I just wanted to read out what the Government said in that explanatory paper rather than give my impression.
That issue is not important—all I want is an answer to the simple question: will companies be told? Under article 12 in the original paper—I believe that it is unchanged in the revised document—the officials of the Community, the so-called "Community policemen" or whoever, have the power to enter any undertakings
to examine the books and other business records; to take or demand copies of or extracts from the books and business records; to ask for oral explanations on the spot; to enter any premises, land and means of transport of undertakings.
The Minister may say that that is all part of being European and may be it is, but I believe that many people who run businesses will be unaware that, once the regulations goes through, people appointed by the Commission will be able to walk in, ask for any documents and ask for answers "on the spot"—those are words used in article 12.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman may be giving the impression that there is a new power. The Commission already has similar powers under articles 85 and 86 to walk into companies which it suspects of entering price fixing arrangements, for example, and it has used them.

Mr. Taylor: I am well aware of the powers that are contained in article 85. As the hon. Gentleman has said, if there is a danger of price fixing, the Commission has the powers to which he has referred.
I am suggesting that many people who run companies or businesses and do not follow politics will not be aware of the matters that we are discussing. If they are aware of them, my suggestion is obviously nonsense. I am not talking about those who run ICI, Shell or Unilever. My understanding of article 12 is that it relates to any premises which the Commission considers relevant and not solely to the businesses that are directly concerned.
The Minister must inform businesses of the fines that can be imposed. As he rightly said, a fine of 50,000 ecu —a small sum—can be levied by the Commission upon those who in its opinion supply misleading information, but there are many other penalties. Under the old regulation—I wonder whether it is the new one—
The Commission may by decision impose on natural or legal persons fines of
up to 2 million ecu

where, either intentionally or negligently, they commit a breach of the obligation to notify".
There are those who say, in effect, fair enough, but if the Commission considers that there has been a breach there can be a huge fine.
What about delays in supplying information? The Government are well aware that businesses are being asked constantly for more and more information. The Department of Trade and Industry is always asking them to attend wonderful 1992 conferences, and at the same time they are being asked to complete numerous forms. Running a business is not the same as being a Member of Parliament. Business men have to do things in a hurry if customers want things quickly. However, under article 14, if information is not supplied when it is wanted, there can be a fine of up to 25,000 ecu. That is rather significant. There are fines for not providing information, fines for not providing information on time, and fines for being negligent.
When problems of this sort arise, the normal course for someone in this country is to go to a British court. Some of our courts are funny but basically they are places where we get justice.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Under article 15 there is provision for review by the European Court of Justice. We are told:
The Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 172 of the Treaty to review decisions whereby the Commission has fixed a fine".
There is a judical process whereby those who are fined can appeal to the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Taylor: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have read the papers and that I am well aware of the provisions within article 13. Given his expert knowledge, I ask him to tell us how much it costs to go to the Court of Justice, what it would cost if something went wrong and the case was lost, and how long the process takes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his expert knowledge of Euro-matters, will be able to respond. Let us suppose that I am fined for not providing information. I could go to the Court of Justice, but that would cost quite a lot of money and the process would take a long time to complete.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My hon. Friend will be aware that efforts are being made by the European Court of Justice to create a first tier, where three judges will sit on their own. This will enable matters of law which require quick decisions to be dealt with expeditiously at short notice. All the evidence will be given by affidavit. This will provide us with a quick, cheap and simple operation of Community law.

Mr. Taylor: That is a splendid idea. I, too, have heard about that. I am saying that if someone goes to the European Court of Justice, the process will not be quick, easy and cheap, even if he uses the new tribunal set-up.
We are not talking about small fines. The Commission
may by decision impose fines not exceeding 10 per cent. of the value of the reorganized assets where the undertakings concerned either intentionally or negligently put into effect a concentration in breach of — article 7.
I know that some hon. Members may feel that this is silly stuff, but let them understand that the Commission can enter a business man's premises. It can enter premises that it thinks are related to an organisation. For example, it could enter a public relations company, if it considered that it were a related organisation, and demand answers on


the spot. It would have the ability to impose considerable fines up to 1 million ecu. That is the sort of thing that people will worry about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who is a great Europhile, says that business men in such circumstances can go to the new Euro-court and that that will be quick and easy, but I doubt whether that will happen.
I also want to know what will happen when the Commission has the power, once a merger is taking place, to call for it to stop: I think that it is called instructing disinvestment or divestment. That does not happen in this country unless a merger is referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the Government do not do that in many cases. There is no question of the exciting implications of the House of Fraser affair being unwound, for instance.
I think that many firms considering mergers would like to know about all this stuff, but they cannot, because we debate it at such ludicrous hours. The Institute of Directors, for example, is very worried about these developments. I hope that the Government will give one pledge: that once the measure has been passed they will publish a little booklet explaining the new arrangements that business men must face. It is frightening for people trying to run a business to be faced with so many new powers and restrictions.
I do not like the suggestion that Commissioners rather than courts will fix fines. The Commissioners are not men of God; they do not possess unlimited powers and unlimited wisdom. We know who they are, how they get where they are and how they act on advice, and it has nasty implications for democracy.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has just said that we know how Commissioners get where they are. How did Sir Leon Brittan get there?

Mr. Taylor: I would not like to give any advice on that. I have never been asked to be a Commissioner: that may provide some guidance on how to be appointed.
In the old days, people accused of dumping had to say that they were selling at a price lower than that at which they had bought. Nowadays, however, the Commission can fix what it calls "a normal price". Hon. Members may ask, "What is a normal price?". The Commission told a firm in my constituency that it was selling below the normal price, but when the firm asked what was meant by a normal price no explanation was given. Firms are entitled to no information whatever.
This is the kind of thing that used to happen in the old days before there was a Parliament or a democracy: officials would decide fines and would tell people what they could and could not do. They would announce that they were entering the premises. Some of my hon. Friends will say that I am covering old ground, but this is new ground. What we are deciding is within a new framework, a new kind of democracy.
I am sorry about the direction in which the Labour party is going. I used to think that, although we disagreed politically, the Labour party fought for the individual, for liberty and for democracy; that it fought for the people and against the big battalions. Now our democracy is experiencing a dramatic change: the Commission is

making decisions, imposing fines and defining normal prices, without having to give a reason. I think that that is wrong, but whether it is right, wrong or—as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister would argue—does not matter, I think that firms are entitled to know what is going on. I hope, therefore, that when he winds up my hon. Friend will say that he will publish a little booklet explaining how the new European arrangements will affect mergers. I know that most people do not worry about it, but I think that the majority of business men will be shocked, horrified and worried, and that all who care about democracy and freedom would feel sick at what is happening tonight

Mr. Alex Carlile: I agree with at least one thing that was said by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin): it is very regrettable that this important debate, and indeed the long series of European Community debates that we are having, always seem to take place so late at night. They attract an almost predictable cast list. On the one hand, there are the Euroholics, in whom a surfeit of European matters seems to produce a sort of sickness or paranoia, such as that expressed just now by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). On the other hand, there are the Europhiles—among whom I may be counted—who feel that the European Community is a much more democratic and useful organisation than it is considered by the hon. Member for Southend, East, and who are prepared to argue for its constructive aspects in the House.
A debate on mergers and monopolies is extremely important. The Government's attitude to the subject may well be a benchmark of their attitude to Europe. Therefore, it was with great interest that I listened to the Minister. I tried to glean from his speech whether he agreed with the former Prime Minister from his party on Europe, with the present Prime Minister or with the Foreign Secretary who, presumably, would like to be the next Prime Minister. Good lawyer that he is, the Minister chose the role of amicus curiae. However, a little later, when he replied to an intervention from one of his hon. Friends, I thought that I detected a slight tendency towards the views on Europe held by the former Prime Minister from his party.
We are considering redrafted proposals and it was right for the Minister to express reservations about some aspects of the proposals. They are not as clear as they ought to be and some features need redrafting and further consideration. One worrying aspect is the reservation in the proposals about the national interest—the question of what a member state can reserve out of the Commission's regime over concentrations, in the national interest. Does that include regional interests and the interests of Commonwealth countries? It is important that the United Kingdom should be able to ensure that the interests of Commonwealth countries, to which we have obligations, should be properly considered in the European context. Their interests should not just disappear among the market of 322 million and the combined interests of 12 member states.
Having expressed those reservations, I now say that the proposals just about get it right. They aim at certain concerns that we should all share. There is the concern that intervention in proposed mergers should be predictable. At the moment it is somewhat difficult to predict when the


Minister will decide that a proposed merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There are not clearly set-out financial criteria which enable one to look at the proposal made by the acquisitive company and say that on financial grounds alone the matter will have to be considered by the Commission.
The European Commission's proposals set certain financial and economic standards. Whether they are right is a matter for debate and further consideration, but the principle of setting clear standards is important. It will mean that a company that wishes to make a major acquisition will be able to look at the size of the proposed new company, set its proposal against the standards laid down by the Commission, and know by rule of thumb whether the matter will have to be considered further or whether it can simply go ahead. The company will know whether it has to justify to the Commission what it is doing or whether it can proceed. That will be useful for large companies.
The Commission is also concerned at the increasing concentration of economic power in fewer hands. That is not quite the same as being concerned solely with competition. As the Minister said earlier, the Government's sole ground for referring bids to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is competition. The Community can consider concentration not only in fewer hands but concentration in the hands of non-Community nationals. That could be of great importance in dealing with the ownership of newspapers and—what worries me particularly at the moment—the ownership of satellite television channels, where there are great possibilities for the dissemination of information.
It is also useful that the regulating authority should, as proposed by the Commission, consider bids on a wider public interest basis than has ever been applied in the United Kingdom. The public interest basis could take full account of the environmental and safety standards to be set by the new company. We see from the way in which nuclear power generation is distributed unevenly around Europe that it is not possible to set proper safety standards on a purely national basis. If say a company from a country less than 100 miles from the shores of the United Kingdom proposed a merger which involved the construction of nuclear power stations not built to a standard acceptable in the United Kingdom, it would be impossible under present provisions to do anything about it; but under the proposed Community regime it would become possible to consider the Community public interest, including standards on the environment and safety.
The Commission could consider the amount of research and development to be conducted and, of course, the degree of competition within the product market, and prices. Those are commendable public interest considerations which should properly be taken into account by an organisation that is considering whether a merger should take place.
There is an analogy with the anti-trust laws of the United States of America. If the Government really mean their commitment to the 1992 single market, there is a need for an effective Community competition policy to examine mergers and takeovers in a strategically European context. It is illogical to have a single economic market and to leave something as important as mergers and competition to a very limited degree of Commission intervention and mainly to national Government intervention.

Mr. Dalyell: When the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the environment, might that not be covered in article 20? In the explanatory memorandum we see that member states may take appropriate measures to protect legitimate interests. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer. I would have thought that the reference to legitimate interests would cover the matters that he has raised. I should like confirmation when the Minister replies. It is a very important point.

Mr. Carlile: I shall leave it to the Minister to answer that question as he is a lawyer more expert in these matters than I. Obtaining the answer will give his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) a little more exercise; he looks as though he could do with a good deal more.
There is a logical case for a strategically European context in the policy over mergers and takeovers. While one must recognise the necessity for large companies, capable of competing in world markets, that must not occur at the expense of European consumers. If we have a European manufacturing market, a European production market and a European financial market, we must accept that we also have a European consumer market. If there is to be such a market, matters relating to it should surely be considered at European level—particularly bearing in mind the high degree of democratic and national accountability that exists within the Community.
The Community suggests that the burden of proof should be shifted on to the shoulders of those wanting to create mega-corporations. That seems right to me, and I hope that the Government continue to hold that view if they agree, as I think they do, with this part of the proposals.
Of most concern to me is the Government's underlying attitude. Are we really listening to the Government saying, "Yes, we want to make these proposals better. When we come to 1992"—when, on my understanding, we go from unanimity to majority voting—"we want a more acceptable regime"? If so, 1 have little criticism of the Minister's approach, except that he is a little grudging in his acceptance of the draft.
However, one is bound to suspect in the light of recent statements by the Prime Minister that the Government give the appearance of accepting the proposals grudgingly but are really exercising a Gaullist objection to the further Community's development. If so, I regret that very much.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On the final point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), from listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), I do not believe that the Government are making a Gaullist objection to Europe's development.
It is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is not against the principles that the directive lays down but has a number of reservations about them. So do I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We must take more interest in discussing these matters. I identify myself with the remark of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) about how unsatisfactory it is that the House debates them late at night. In years to come, it will be realised that our discussions formed the basis of Council of Ministers' decisions—although fortunately the proposal before the House requires


unanimity—and we may live to regret the lack of interest in them shown by some right hon. and hon. Members, the media and the public.
I support the principle behind the Commission's proposals. If, as we approach 1992, there is no open competition and no ruling on monopolies and mergers, there will be chaos. Much of the directive falls on all fours with the Government's traditional guidelines, which are the Tebbit rules. It all boils down to market share, competition, and the overall interests of the consumer. The directive provides for a turnover basis of £700 million, which is not unreasonable when one considers the size of the Community.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have been involved in mergers and takeovers. Two years ago, I was involved in the attempted takeover by BTR of Pilkington. Strong regional feelings exist in that case. The influence of people who work for that company is important for the region and there is clearly a regional interest that must be protected. I am sure that hon. Members who represent Yorkshire constituencies had similar feelings over the takeover by Nestlé of Rowntree.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that we must consider the national interest—what he described as "the political interest", and there are other ways of describing it—not simply on the basis of individual sovereign state legislation on monopolies and mergers but in terms of the effect of this type of directive.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The draft regulation gives all the power to the Commission, which becomes the investigator, prose—cutor, judge and policeman. There is no room for national sovereignty in this set-up.

Mr. Hind: The right hon. Gentleman raises the point that I was about to discuss. As a lawyer, it worries me that the Commission is judge and jury in its own court. That is bad, and I hope that the Minister will press for more use of the European Court within the framework of this directive. It is wrong that, when the Commission says, for example, that notice has not been given of a takeover or that the information required has not been given, it can act as policeman and give on-the-spot fines. Such a matter should go before the court, be it passed down, as it were, to individual state courts—the British courts in our case —or to the European Court. Each company—whether it is taken over or it is the predator company—should have to appear before that court and put its case.
I regret this extension of power that we are giving to the Commission, remembering that traditionally we have separated the Executive and judicial functions within our jurisdiction. As a result of this directive, they could be merged. It is a dangerous step which we should avoid at all costs.
I appreciate what the Minister said about articles 85 and 86; those issues will have to be sorted out. If we are to have a policy for the future on monopolies and mergers within the EEC, a directive of this nature is essential. Hon. Members who, like myself, represent north of England constituencies and who share the concern that is felt about Rowntree and Pilkington may agree that perhaps it is a

thought that the takeover by Nestlé of Rowntree under this directive would have been referred to the EEC. Surely that represents a step in the right direction.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The message that the Government should be getting from this debate is the genuine concern that is felt in all parts of the House about regional interest. From Pilkington, York or, as in my case, Bathgate and what happened to the old Telegraph Condenser Company, it gets to Plessey, then Plessey gets involved and this week we have Towcester. I do not speak for Northamptonshire, but it is a general pattern of worry and there must be an overall view.
Because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I will put the remainder of my speech in the form of questions. First, what is the legal interpretation of article 20 and what do "legitimate interests" cover? Do they cover regional problems, which were well outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin)?
Secondly, on the important question of the threshold levels, do the Government agree with the view that is attributed to Sir Leon Brittan that there should be lower threshold levels? Are they to be lower or not?
Thirdly, a question about double jeopardy. I do not understand what the legal difficulty is. The Government have available to them expert advice. I have had this problem explained to me by David Edward, who was recently appointed by the Foreign Secretary—rightly—to the court of first instance. The Government can go to such expert lawyers and get some kind of ruling. There is an overlap between national aspects and the EEC aspect. We are not playing blind man's buff.

Mr. Spearing: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the definition of a single market under article 8A, which is an area without internal frontiers. While I sympathise with what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, if that is the definition of the free movement of capital, how can regional or national interests be taken into account?

Mr. Dalyell: That may be a question for the Court of Justice. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) may remember from his Cathcart days Lord Mackenzie Stuart, and other distinguished Scottish jurists who have gone to Europe. I do not think that there is much evidence that they are slower than the United Kingdom courts. He may have such evidence.
Is there a ripple of disatisfaction in governmental circles about the speed with which European Court decisions have been made? I understand that it has acted rather expeditiously, and has been effective. It certainly has a number of distinguished English and Scottish jurists on it.
Fourthly, what about the successfully contended takeover bids? My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East raised the real concern of the Law Society of Scotland. I know something of the background to this, and it has genuine concerns. If it is concerned about Scotland, the north-west and the north-east of England have equal cause to be concerned. This is linked with the problem of additionality. Again, if there were time, we should have an explanation from the Government of what their policy on additionality is. When the other Commissioner, Bruce Millan, came to my constituency a couple of weeks ago, he


expressed public concern that the British Government were using additionality to help their domestic finances, and using the European fund in a way that was not intended.
I do not want to be dragged into a debate about something that the hon. Member for Southend, East said, but he asked how Commissioners get there. It takes the can to have Sir Leon Brittan, after all the years in the background—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): Careful!

Mr. Dalyell: I am being careful. I do not need lectures in care from that Minister, particularly after his performance at the Dispatch Box. I will put it tactfully. Sir Leon Brittan rendered the supreme service to his leader of silence—silence about skulduggery. I have checked it, and that is a good parliamentary word. That had a great deal to do with the person in charge. It takes the can for that man, after his performance in front of a Select Committee, to be in charge of such sensitive issues.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall be brief because time is pressing.
I want to return to the arguments on articles 85 and 86, whether it is better to have a directive and take court action on the basis of those articles. I shall make two points regarding the power of the Commission. Once the Single European Act and all the other measures for which some hon. Members voted come into force, we shall be unable to avoid some form of regulation. I am concerned about the power that the regulation gives the Commission. It will determine whether a merger is within the regulation. It will ask for all the papers on the merger and will be the judge, jury and policeman who polices the arrangements. Our system, which is not perfect and about which I do not want to be too romantic, is different. The Office of Fair Trading acts as a preliminary sieve, court of first instance or magistrates court. If there is a case it is considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which makes recommendations and passes it to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who makes a decision for which, in theory at least, he is accountable to Parliament. It is not a perfect system, but at least there are some checks and balances and consideration of the powers involved.
If the regulation is passed, two bodies must be established. The Commission should be the prosecutor, but an independent body—it will not like this proposal —outside the Commission, similar to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, should act as judge and determine whether a merger is within the regulation. Some people might say, "We can do that within the Commission. We can have Chinese walls, with someone at one end of the Berlaymont building acting as prose—cutor and someone at the other end being the judge." I do not believe that quasi-governmental institutions operate in such a way. Commissioners and civil servants within the Commission may be honourable people, but I do not believe that that can be done. An independent body must act as judge, and an appeal could be made to the court of first instance.
I think that I heard the Minister correctly when he said that he was not too happy with the second limb of the regulation, whereby, even if damage to competition could result from a merger, the Commission could determine

whether it is in Europe's interests that it should be allowed. The Commission would be exercising a kind of public interest function. It would determine European industrial strategy, and although there could be a reduction in competition because the merged organisation involves, say, electronics, it could decide that the overriding priority is to allow the merger.
I do not believe that the Commission should take such a decision. It is a decision not about competition but about policy and economics, which should be taken by politicians, taking into account the regional and other considerations. If the second limb of the regulation is passed, the Council of Ministers could determine that a merged organisation that inhibits competition should be allowed because of European regional policy. One can imagine the public relations men, lobbying groups in Brussels and vast amounts of money that could be involved. Such pressure should not be placed on the Commission.
I do not believe that the Commission should be judge and jury or that it should determine the political issue of European industrial strategy. Such decisions should be taken by the Council of Ministers, and the judge in the first instance should be not the Commission but an independent body.

Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had an interesting debate, although it has taken place rather late this evening.
The Commission's proposal is a logical extension of articles 85 and 86 and the onset of the single market There has been some disagreement about the exact criteria that would make the proposal acceptable to the British and other Community Governments. We have been given a sketchy outline of a tenfold increase in the worldwide turnover of a company compared with what would happen under the Commission's proposals and a fivefold increase in the Community turnover of at least two of the companies involved, which is the Government's position. It would be interesting to know the position of the other Governments and whether a feasible compromise which is acceptable to the House of Commons can be reached.
The Minister attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) for referring to press statements and rumours. Unfortunately, because the Council of Ministers meets in secret—the only legislative body outside the Soviet Union to do so—we have to rely on press reports, rumours and leaks, which sometimes come from the Government, to find out the exact position. Perhaps the Minister would like to inform us of the feeling in other countries on the possibility of a reasonable compromise being reached.
I ask the Minister to examine the possibilities of using article 235 in constructing a regional interest. Article 20 of the regulation states that there can be
Legitimate interests other than those pursued by this Regulation, provided that such interests are sufficiently defined and protected in domestic law".
There is a possibility of domestic or national interests being defined for the purpose of the regulation. Article 235 could be used to develop the concept of a regional interest, if the Government were so minded. Is that what they would like to achieve?
It is one thing for us to be worried about the lateness of the debate and for us often to be worried about the late


stage at which we are consulted on European matters, but a more radical solution is available if we are prepared to review the Community's procedures and give the European Parliament greater power, particularly now that some Conservative Members have left it—it is now a much better place.
I wholeheartedly endorse the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about a separate body. We have in the Community a Court of Auditors which does a good independent job examining spending and fraud issues. This is an opportunity to do something similar in respect of monopolies and mergers and control of concentrations.

Mr. Maude: This has been a useful debate. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who referred to the lateness of the debate, said that it was late in the negotiation process.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I did not say that it was late this time.

Mr. Maude: I am grateful for that correction. We sought to bring this matter forward for debate and scrutiny at a proper time. There is still a great deal to be discussed. I think that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) would concede that we have done everything that we can to submit the proposal to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I warmly welcome the close attention that right hon. and hon. Members have paid. It has helped the Government as we take the discussions forward.
A number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members talked about sovereignty, as though there were to be a transfer of sovereignty to the Commission under this measure. That is not the case, because the European Commission, under articles 85 and 86 of the treaty, already has such competence. It exercises it and is legally unimpeachable. If we manage to resolve the outstanding problems in this regulation, there will be an improved procedure.
Under article 18, the Commission would have to be
in close and constant liaison with the competent authorities of the Member States".
There is no such requirement on the Commission under articles 85 and 86. In addition, there would be an advisory committee of member states which would have to be consulted on matters including fines and decisions made by the Commission. The Commission would take the utmost account of the opinion of the decision given by the committee and would inform it of the manner in which its opinion had been taken into account. I hope that that gives some reassurance that, far from giving more power to the Commission, the measure would define the power to be exercised by the Commission and would stress that it had to be exercised in consultation with national authorities, both the competent authorities and the advisory committee.

Ms. Quin: rose—

Mr. Maude: I will not give way, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, because I have only two minutes left and it has been a lengthy debate. I would like to answer the points that have been raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) urged us to publish a pamphlet if we managed to reach a satisfactory agreement. I can undertake that at such a juncture we would certainly propose to issue an explanatory leaflet. He is right that it is important that businesses should be told how these matters operate so that they can make their dispositions accordingly.
My hon. Friend also raised the matter of fines. The European Court of Justice would have the power to review fines upwards, as well as downwards, and would be given unlimited jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the regulation in the ways that I have described. It would, of course, be necessary for the Commission to be properly staffed before taking on these wider responsibilities.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) raised a number of issues. I am delighted to see that he has returned to the Chamber in time to hear the response to them. He mentioned the possibility that under the regulation it would be possible for wider matters to be taken into account than is possible under the national regulations. He referred to matters such as research and development, safety standards and environmental considerations. It is not the case that there is no scope for those matters to be considered under United Kingdom legislation. If a merger is referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, it has a duty to take all the relevant matters into consideration in deciding whether the merger is in the public interest.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned article 20 and the issue of national interest. The wording of that article is still under discussion and the draft wording includes a consideration of the local markets of a member state and national interests are generally understood to include defence, media and prudential controls in insurance and banking. However, we accept that further consideration and negotiation is needed on that—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document Nos. 5936/88 and 9822/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 12th May 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings; notes the United Kingdom's general reserve; but supports the Government's intention to continue to contribute constructively to discussions with the Commission and other Member States in order to see whether the outstanding issues can be resolved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

SUMMER TIME

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th April.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Ron Davies: I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising on the Floor of the House tonight the subject of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. It is a matter of great concern to thousands of dairy producers and presents a major potential risk to public health. I am afraid that it also demonstrates the indecision and evasiveness that currently dominate the approach of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to questions of food production and quality control. The fact that this is the first debate on the subject to be held in the House shows the complacency with which the Government are viewing the problem. Even when they unveiled the only substantial step that they have taken so far in investigating the disease, they did so by means of a written answer rather than having the courtesy to make a statement in the House.
It will already be clear that I differ from the Minister on several matters of substance over the way in which MAFF has responded to BSE and the hazards that it presents to human health. Before I refer to them, it will be convenient to describe the disease, because its nature is the only common ground between myself and the Minister.
As its name suggests, BSE is specific to cattle. It is a degenerative disease that effectively destroys the brain. It is incurable, can have an incubation period of several years, and is transmissible and invariably fatal. Death ensues rapidly after the onset of clinical symptoms. It is one of a group of related diseases that affect species as diverse as humans and hamsters. The Southwood report records spongiform encephalopathies in sheep, goats, deer, antelope, mink and mice. Other research has uncovered the equivalent disease in squirrels, ferrets, guinea pigs, chimpanzees, squirrel monkeys and other primates.
I have read a scientific paper which complains of the reluctance of laboratory workers to research into transmissible encephalopathies because of the evidence of transmissibility to humans. Another paper remarks on the extraordinary similarities between the respective diseases that affect different species. The conclusion is that it is probably caused by the same agent manifesting itself slightly differently, as would be expected, from species to species.
In humans, the disease is known as Kuru and Creutzfeldt-Jakob dementia. The bovine form was first identified at MAFF's laboratories in late 1986, and is accepted as having been caused by feeding cattle with the rendered remains of sheep infected with the bovine form known as scrapie. As well as being known to resist high temperatures and normal disinfecting procedures, the causal agent has been shown to have the capacity to cross the species barrier outside the laboratory as well as in it.
That much is known. However, we do not know the nature of the causative agent and precisely how it is transmitted outside the laboratory. Under laboratory conditions, it has been proven to spread through ingestion of infected material, inoculation through abrased skin and intracerebral injection.
The unidentified agent within the host animal gathers a protective coating of proteins specific to that animal, and

thereby avoids provoking any immune response. It is therefore unlike normal viral infections, in that it is undetectable until the onset of clinical symptoms of the disease that it causes.
Now to more disputed matters. There is clearly a theoretical risk to humans who handle or consume infected material, although the Government, through their scientific advisers on the Southwood committee, describe the risk as "remote". Which word, I wonder, would the Government have chosen in the early 1980s to describe the possibility of scrapie in sheep crossing the species barrier and occurring as BSE in cattle?
Clearly the chances must have been considered even less than remote, because the Government then moved to lower standards of processing animal remains for animal feed. However, the positions then and now are not entirely analogous. During the early 1980s, when cattle were fed with scrapie-infected animal protein, there was no evidence that cattle could contract a similar disease. In 1989, humans are eating animal products infected with BSE, when it is an undisputed fact that humans can contract a form of transmissible encephalopathy.
Now that the outbreak has occurred, even though the Government regard the risks as remote, they have banned the use of ruminant remains in ruminant rations, made the disease notifiable, introduced a slaughter policy and compensation, banned the sale for human consumption of meat and milk from infected animals, and banned the use of certain bovine organs from baby foods. All that action has been taken to combat a risk that the Government have described as "remote".
We welcome and support those measures. Unfortunately, they do not amount to a coherent and comprehensive policy. They are inadequate, and far too many loopholes exist. The Government's response to the Southwood committee report implied that the problem was fully recognised and that adequate measures were being taken to investigate and control the disease, thereby protecting the public.
In a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) on 27 February, the Minister said that the Government were acting with "extreme prudence". Now that we have had time to look more closely at the issues involved, it is obvious that the Minister's political response to the scientific issues raised by the Southwood report has been wanting. My view is shared by eminent physicians. The public health committee of the British Veterinary Association and the organisation with potentially the most to lose, the National Farmers Union, have all declared their concern at the inadequacy of the Government's actions.
Let me illustrate the point. A distinguished neuropathologist from Charing Cross hospital, Dr. Helen Grant, writing in The Times, says of the official assurance in 1987 that BSE posed no risk to humans:
This view is highly irresponsible and dangerous. The fact is that there may be a risk to humans: indeed some of us may already be incubating this fatal dementia".
Dr. Grant and Professor William Blackwood, who is also from Charing Cross hospital, again in a letter to The Times, this time after Southwood had reported, stated:
unless bovine brain is totally banned from food, or is avoided, a new human health hazard hovers over us, potentially far more serious than the various treatable infections we have lately heard so much about. It is the risk of an untreatable dementia.


The Times' medical correspondent, who is a practising doctor, has written that no one can be sure that the causal agent has
not already been picked up by people as they enjoyed a piece of marrow or an Irish stew, or ate a meat pie which had contained brains or meat from an infected, but not yet stricken, animal".
He goes on to say:
recent research has suggested that it is probable that many cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have followed the eating of sheep infected by scrapie".
With regard to the risk of BSE to humans, he states:
If the disease can be spread in food from sheep to cows, why not through beasts to humans?".
I could cite further expert medical opinion; however, veterinary and farming interests are equally concerned. The public health committee of the British Veterinary Association has called for an increase in the amount of compensation payed on infected animals, and, according to a recent press release,
believes that there should be restrictions on the movement of offspring as well as compulsory veterinary ante-mortem inspection of all bovines".
The NFU also recently said of Southwood:
No recommendation was made on compensation terms and the NFU will continue to pursue with MAFF the need for 100 per cent. to ensure total reporting".
In other words, both the NFU and the BVA acknowledge that there is currently a financial incentive which has encouraged submission of infected animals for human consumption.
Compensation levels are clearly a very controversial subject. I am surprised that the Southwood report dealt so cursorily with the issue, apparently believing that 50 per cent. compensation was sufficient. I have heard that that was not its original recommendation, but the Minister denies that he pressured the committee into changing any of the report. When challenged on the "Face the Facts" radio programme at 7.20 pm, the Minister refused to say whether Professor Southwood had recommended to him that the compensation level should be 75 per cent.
I am also very unhappy with the current level of compensation. It is not good enough for the Minister to tell me, as he has done recently, that because it is illegal, farmers are not entering suspect cases for slaughter. He knows that infected animals are being entered into slaughterhouses—Southwood says so. While the farmer can gain financially by not reporting a suspected case, we cannot be satisfied that everything is being done to minimise the risks of infected cases entering the food chain.
That is what is happening now. The Minister told me in a written answer that 63 suspected cases were identified in markets and slaughterhouses in 1988. Forty of those were subsequently confirmed and they were identified by ante-mortem veterinary inspection. Unfortunately, that inspection takes place in only 10 per cent. of British slaughterhouses.
Some 1·6 million bovines were slaughtered last year in slaughterhouses at which there is no such ante-mortem inspection. If the Ministry had implemented the recommendations of the Preston report, which it commissioned, the position would be different. Typically, however, it chose not to act until forced to do so by the European Community. In the meantime, thousands of cattle each week are slaughtered without ante-mortem

veterinary inspection, and it is inconceivable that all sufferers of BSE are being weeded out. That is the predominant view among those who deal with BSE in the field. It is well put by the senior National Farmers Union source, who, in The Sunday Telegraph of 19 February 1989, is reported as saying:
It is common knowledge in the industry that infected animals have got into the food chain. The Ministry's approach has been illogical".
I have repeatedly asked the Minister to provide figures for the post-Southwood period relating to inspections and confirmation of BSE at EEC and non-EEC approved slaughterhouses. He has repeatedly refused to provide the information, although he has acknowledged that it is collated by his divisional officers. He asserts that there is no evidence that infected cattle are passing into human food supplies. The plain fact is that he is deliberately refusing to collate the information that would demonstrate whether this is or is not the case. Even if all BSE sufferers were weeded out, people in Britain would still be eating infected material—

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Why?

Mr. Davies: Because cattle brains carry the infection in high concentrations prior to the onset of clinical signs of the disease.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) asked why. The simple reason is that the Minister refuses to collate that information, because it would force him to acknowledge publicly that BSE-infected cattle are now being consumed by humans in Britain in 1989.
By consistently refusing my demands for the banning of the sale of all those organs that are known to carry the disease, the Minister is ensuring that our citizens go on eating products which are infected with a potentially fatal contagion. Even if his claims that no infected animals are getting through were true—which they are not—people would still be exposed to infection. That applies not just to the consumers of beef products. Those whose work involves the handling of beef products are also at risk. That is especially true of slaughterhouse workers, who frequently handle beef products with little protective clothing and who frequently will have cuts and abrasions into which infection can enter. That is known to be one of the most effective routes for the transfer of transmissible encephalopathies.
In his reply to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove in February, the Minister said that the Health and Safety Executive was considering what further action was necessary to ensure the safety of such occupational groups. Three weeks after that statement by the Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment told me:
The Health and Safety Executive is not operating separate procedures for monitoring spongiform encephalopathy".—[Official Report, 21 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 555.]
A further two months later, after hundreds, probably thousands, of animals carrying the BSE agent will have passed through slaughterhouses, the Health and Safety Executive has yet to act. If it is not monitoring for CJD —the human form of encephalopathy—it may have no information to act upon. In the light of the conflicting statements from the two Government Departments, perhaps they are confused as to what is expected of them.
In his reply in February to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, to which I referred, the Minister said:


the Chief Medical Officer is ensuring mechanisms are in place to detect any change in the pattern of Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease."—[Official Report, 27 February 1989; Vol. 148, c. 90.]
In other words, the chief medical officer would be examining the incidence of CJD in humans to see if there was any evidence of transmission of encephalopathy from cattle to humans.
In a written reply to me in mid-April, the Under-Secretary of State for Health revealed that the chief medical officer was still discussing with the Medical Research Council the most effective way of doing this. To date, nothing has happened. So no action has been taken either to protect groups that may be at risk, or on monitoring such groups for the disease in question. Confusion reigns.
It would help us to know the extent to which the infected animals are being slaughtered at commercial slaughterhouses. If the Government agreed to implement a system of random monitoring of the brains of cull cattle —perhaps 10 per cent. of all cattle slaughtered—they could be examined for this encephalopathy. I have consistently called upon the Minister to do that and he has consistently refused. Having spoken to vets, I know that they would value such monitoring as a way of increasing epidemiological knowledge of the disease and improving our imperfect knowledge of its development.
Random sampling need not be expensive, but it would reveal that animals infected with the disease are unavoidably being slaughtered for human consumption —unavoidably, because, although they are infected, the disease may be at the pre-clinical stage. The reason for the Government's refusal to implement such a policy is, I imagine, that they deny that infected beasts—clinically or sub-clinically infected—are getting through. Until they wake up and face the reality of the situation, as recognised by the majority of people dealing with BSE, they cannot tackle the problem to the necessary extent.
The Government can, however, put an immediate stop to the staggeringly irresponsible practice of exporting meat and bone meal for possible inclusion in dairy rations—the very source of the disease in the first instance. Infected meat is now being exported in its raw state to other countries. The Government's failure to take any action to prevent the possibility of the disease spreading is so grossly irresponsible as to be scarcely credible. Assuming that the meat and bone meal exported is typical of that produced in the United Kingdom, last year nearly 3,000 tonnes of such meal derived from sheep infected with scrapie was exported from these shores. If one adds to that the proportion of meal rendered from cattle carrying the BSE infection, which is known to survive the rendering process, one has an enormous reservoir of infection that the Minister continues to allow to be exported.
The Under-Secretary told me that he has issued no advice to those countries importing that meat and bone meal. He also said that the disease has not yet been discussed in the Council of Ministers. Such complacency and disregard for animal health issues elsewhere than on the Minister's own patch is so blinkered and selfish as to constitute a scandal—a scandal to which I hope our trading partners will wake up before BSE hits them to the extent that it has hit us. If they avoid that fate, it will not be due to any consideration of their interests by the British Government. Therefore, the pattern before us is of the

Minister exposing people at home to the hazards of infection and wilfully allowing the export of the source of infection to imperil our trading partners.
I call upon the Government to end now the export of infected material, to raise the compensation level payable on infected cattle in line with the calls of the National Farmers Union and the British Veterinary Association, to ban the sale for human consumption of all cattle brains, spleen and thymus, to introduce random sampling of cull cattle so that we have a greater understanding of the extent of BSE, and, finally, to bring forward for immediate introduction the Minister's 1991 proposals for ante-mortem inspection of all cattle at slaughterhouses.
I cannot believe that the Minister would wilfully imperil the nation's health. If he refuses to take urgent action, that is precisely what he will do.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): The hon. Memer for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has rightly taken a great interest in bovine spongiform encephalopathy since its onset. As my hon. Friends and hon. Members will have gathered from his speech, he has asked many helpful and constructive questions on the matter. I am surprised that tonight he has managed to muddle so much of what has been done so speedily, which has received almost universal approval by those who are concerned directly with BSE. I reject completely the hon. Gentleman's charges of complacency on the part of the Ministry or of my officials.
BSE is a terrible disease and it must be heartbreaking for the farmer to see one of his animals succumb to the distressing and inevitably fatal condition, to say nothing of the financial effect. We have taken BSE extremely seriously. We have implemented a coherent and vigorous programme of measures to contain it, which has been based on the best scientific knowledge available to us. 'We called together the Southwood committee, and before it had concluded its deliberations we had done much that had been recommended. In addition, we have the Tyrrell committee, to which the hon. Gentleman failed to refer, which is considering many of the issues which he has raised this evening.
Up to 12 May, there had been 4,570 cases of BSE. About 600 new cases are being reported each month. That is the rate which was predicted. The hon. Member for Caerphilly outlined the basis of the disease. As he said, the clinical symptoms are similar to a number of other animal diseases, notably scrapie in sheep. The Southwood committee identified the probable source of infection as the use in cattle feed of material derived from sheep infected with scrapie, which for a variety of reasons posed an increased risk of transmission over recent years. The hon. Gentleman went into those risks.
It is hoped that we have found the correct reason for BSE occurring in animals—

Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Thompson: I shall not give way.
The cow receives an almost identical ration every day from the same person.

Mr. Davies: The Southwood committee did not say that.

Mr. Thompson: No. I am saying that. With the same ration, there is a build-up in the animal. Human beings eat a variety of rations and no one eats the same ration every day.
Since 1732, Britain has had scrapie. The incidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—CJD—is no higher in Britain than the international average. There is no scrapie in Australia, for example, but the incidence of CJD is no lower there.
As I have said, the Goverment's response has been vigorous. It has been based on three elements. First, we have acted to eliminate the source of infection—the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants has been prohibited. The ban will be lifted only if a way can be found of treating such material so that the infective agent is destroyed. We know that the agent is unusually resistant, so this will not be an easy task. It is in this important area that there needs to be further research.
Secondly—

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Thompson: No. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that there was silence in the Chamber when he made his speech.
Secondly, we have acted to block off the route by which transmission to humans might occur, even though this is recognised to involve all sources. Sir John Walton, a neurologist, was a member of the Southwood committee, and he is as eminent a figure as Helen Grant. The committee's report states over and over again that the risk of transmission to humans appears to be a remote possibility. This is ensured through the compulsory slaughter of cattle suspected of being infected. Farmers receive compensation at the rate of 50 per cent. of the value of the animal if post-mortem examination confirms that it was infected, and 100 per cent. if clinical diagnosis cannot be confirmed. I can update the figures that I have given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly. The figures of 30 and 33 have moved to 41 in markets and 58 in slaughterhouses over the past three months.
Southwood says that it has been suggested that because compensation is set at 50 per cent. some farmers are evading the law, and as a result carcases of infected animals are reaching the human food chain. However, the evidence does not support that suggestion. That is Southwood's view; it is nothing to do with the Government. We accepted the report, putting no pressure on Southwood before it and changing not a word after it.
The number of suspected cases being reported is said to have gone up since the compulsory slaughter programme was introduced. I have heard time and time again of the suspicion that some people were getting animals through, but have seen no evidence of it. I have asked the hon.

Member for Caerphilly for such evidence on a number of occasions, the most recent being 13 April, but I have not received it.
The meat and milk of infected animals must be removed from the food chain. The carcases of such animals must be disposed of under supervision of the state veterinary service in a way that will prevent the spread of the disease to other species. The Southwood committee saw no need to make recommendations for the changes in our practice which we had already implemented. As a measure of extreme caution we shall prohibit the use of certain bovine offals in baby food, although in practice such materials are not used for that purpose. We have issued guidance about the use of bovine offal in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products.
Finally, but no less important, we have taken steps to improve our knowledge of the diseases. We have set up a scientific committee under Dr. David Tyrrell of the Medical Research Council to make recommendations about research requirements. A thorough research programme is under way into the background of the disease, its transmissibility and the genetic and microbiological aspects.
We have a core of 300 calves, with the equivalent number of control animals, so that we can see how they develop and can reassure ourselves that there is no vertical transmission.
Let me deal with the points that the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to put to me. I have discussed compensation levels and I cannot think that we are being cheated, but I shall be pleased to examine any evidence. As for the risk of BSE-infected animals entering the food chain and the need for random sampling, we hope that Tyrrell will provide a method by which we can obtain samples from the brains of living and dead animals so that we can see what is happening.
The hon. Gentleman asked about lack of veterinary inspection. Many slaughterhouses are inspected by environmental health officers. There seems to have been a movement against EHOs recently by the Labour party, but I have every confidence in them. As for continued exports of meat and bonemeal, we still use them for fertiliser and for feeding chickens and pigs. Other countries are well aware of the position here; they discuss it with us and import such material, probably for those purposes. Southwood recommended that CJD be monitored: that, as the hon. Gentleman said, falls into the province of the chief medical officer.
Safety of slaughterhouse workers is very important, and the Health and Safety Commission is examining how we can best protect them from this and other diseases—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eight minutes past One o'clock.